1.

Timeline of climate change history

1824
French physicist Joseph Fourier is first to describe a "greenhouse
effect" in a paper delivered to Paris's Acadmie Royale des Sciences.
1861
Irish physicist John Tyndall carries out research on radiant heat and
the absorption of radiation by gases and vapors including CO2 and
H2O. He shows that carbon dioxide can absorb in the infrared
spectrum, and it can cause a change in temperature. Tyndall famously
declares: "The solar heat possesses. . . the power of crossing an
atmosphere. But when the heat is absorbed by the planet, it is so
changed in quality that the rays emanating from the planet cannot get
with the same freedom back into space. Thus the atmosphere admits
of the entrance of the solar heat, but checks its exit. The result is a
tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet."
1896
Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposes the idea of a
man-made greenhouse effect. He hypothesizes that the increase in
the burning of coal since the beginning of industrialization could lead
to an increase in atmospheric CO2 and heat up the earth. Arrhenius
was trying to find out why the earth experienced ice ages. He thought
the prospect of future generations living "under a milder sky" would be
a desirable state of affairs.
1938
British engineer Guy Stewart Callendar compiles temperature
statistics in a variety of regions and finds that over the previous
century the mean temperature had risen markedly. He also discovers
that CO2 levels had risen 10 percent during the same period. He
concludes that CO2 was the most likely reason for the rise in
temperature.
1955


John Hopkins University researcher Gilbert Plass proves that increased
levels of carbon dioxide could raise atmospheric temperature. By 1959
Plass is boldly predicting that the earth's temperature would rise more
than 3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
In the same year chemist Hans Suess detects the fossil carbon
produced by burning fuels, although he and Roger Revelle - director of
the Scripps Institute of Oceanography - declare that the oceans must
be absorbing the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they decide
to conduct further research.
1958
Revelle and Suess employ geochemist Charles Keeling to continuously
monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere. After only two years of
measurements in Antarctica an increase is visible. The graph becomes
widely known as the Keeling Curve and becomes an icon of global
warming debate and continues to chart the year on year rise in CO2
concentrations to this day.
1970
The first "Earth Day" takes place on April 22nd across America. Twenty
million people participate in the event organized by Democratic
Senator Gaylord Nelson. It follows and precedes a series of U.S.
Department for Energy reports highlighting concern about global
warming
1979
The first World Climate Conference is held in Geneva attended by
a range of scientists and leads to the establishment of the World
Climate Program.
1985
Scientists at the World Climate Program conference at Villach in
Austria confidently predict that increased CO2 concentrations will lead
to a significant rise in the mean surface temperatures of the earth. A
hole in the ozone layer is discovered over Antarctica.
1987


Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting substances(ODS). Officially
the hottest year on record to date. Three years later the 1980s is
confirmed as the hottest decade since records began.
1988
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is set
up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The IPCC will provide
reports based on scientific evidence which reflect existing viewpoints
within the scientific community.
Parts of the Mississippi river are reduced to a trickle and Yellowstone
National Park becomes a tinderbox. In June, Dr James Hansen of the
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies delivers his famous
testimony to the U.S. Senate. Based on computer models and
temperature measurements he is 99 percent sure that the [human
caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is already
changing the climate.

1990
The IPCC delivers its first assessment on the state of climate change,
predicting an increase of 0.3 C each decade in the 21st century --
greater than any rise seen over the previous 10,000 years.
1992
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development --
better known as the Earth Summit -- takes place in Rio de Janeiro
attended by 172 countries. It is the first unified effort to get to grips
with global warming and leads to negotiations which result in the
Kyoto Protocol.
1995
The hottest year on record. Four years later the 1990s are
confirmed as the hottest decade in 1000 years.
The IPCC report for that year states that "the balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."


1997
The Kyoto Protocol: Industrialized countries agree to cut their
emissions of six key greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2 percent.
Under the terms of the agreement each country -- except developing
countries -- commits to a reduction by 2008 -- 2012 compared to
1990 levels. Notably, the U.S. Congress vote 95 to 0 against any
treaty which doesn't commit developing countries to "meaningful" cuts
in emissions.
2001
Newly elected U.S. President George W. Bush renounces the Kyoto
Protocol stating that it will damage the U.S. economy. The third IPCC
report declares that the evidence of global warming over the previous
50 years being fueled by human activities is stronger than ever.
2003
Europe experiences one the hottest summers on record causing
widespread drought claiming the lives of over 30,000 people.
2005
Following ratification by Russia -- the 19th country to do so --
in November 2004, the Kyoto Protocol becomes a legally
binding treaty. America and Australia continue their refusal to sign
up claiming reducing emissions would damage their economies.



2007
175 countries in total have ratified the Kyoto Treaty. Under new Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd, Australia ratifies the treaty. The IPCC report for a
fourth time states that "warming of the climate is unequivocal" and
that the levels of temperature and sea rise in the 21st century will
depend on the extent or limit of emissions in the coming years.


Former vice-president Al Gore and the IPCC jointly win the Nobel
Peace Prize for services to environmentalism.
2008
160 square miles of the Wilkins Shelf breaks away from the
Antarctic coast. Scientists are concerned that climate change may be
happening faster than previously thought.
Following the Bali talks/roadmap, negotiators from 180 countries
launch formal negotiations towards a new treaty to mitigate climate
change at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks.



















2.Climate change frequently asked questions

What is the difference between global warming and climate
change?

The Earth is warming faster than it has in the past thousand years,
hence the term global warming. But climate change is a better
description than global warming, as some areas may, in fact, cool. It
also describes other effects like rising sea levels and more extreme
weather.

Is the greenhouse effect the same as global warming?

No: The greenhouse effect is the way the atmosphere traps some of
the energy we receive from the Sun (infrared radiation or heat,
ultraviolet and visible light) and stops it being transmitted back out


into space. This makes the Earth warm enough for life. The problem is
that scientists believe we are adding dangerously to the natural
greenhouse effect with the gases from industry and agriculture (chiefly
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). This traps more solar
energy and increases the temperature.

Has climate changed in the past?

There is little doubt, from the evidence so far, that there have been
enormous changes in climate in the past. These ranged from a
complete absence of ice over the Poles to ice sheets extending across
much of Europe, Asia and North America. The last major extension of
polar ice retreated only 10,000 years ago. Since then, the climate has
sometimes been warmer and sometimes cooler than it is now.

Has the climate changed recently?

Natural sources, such as tree rings and glaciers, as well as human
records, show that climate has changed significantly over the past few
hundred years. There was a relatively warm period in Europe during
the 14th century, followed by a quite sudden change to cooler
conditions in the 15th century. This extended into the Little Ice Age of
the 17th and 18th centuries, followed by a warming trend that has
recently accelerated. The evidence for this recent warming comes
largely from direct measurements of temperature.
In the more temperate northern latitudes, winters are less severe than
30 years ago, with cold snaps generally being short-lived.

As natural emissions of carbon dioxide are very much greater
than those from human activities, surely the effect of man is
insignificant?



The exchange of man-made carbon dioxide between man-made
emissions, atmosphere, ocean and land, is about 7 GtC/year (billion
tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, per year), which also
shows much larger natural exchanges between atmosphere and ocean
(about 90 GtC/yr) and atmosphere and land (about 60 GtC/yr).
However, these natural exchanges have been in balance for many
thousands of years, leading to the pre-industrial concentration of CO2
remaining steady at about 280 ppm.

If were meant to have global warming, why is the weather so
miserable a lot of the time?

This is the fundemental difference between weather and climate. Even
in a warming climate we will still get individual weather systems which
will bring miserable weather. There is indisputable evidence that the
climate is changing. The average global surface temperature has risen
by 0.6 C in the past 140 years. Globally, nine out of the ten hottest
years ever recorded have occurred since 1990. Here in the UK, four
out of five of the hottest years ever recorded over a 330-year period
have occurred since then.

Is lots of rain a sign of climate change?

A research project, carried out by Met Office and the Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology, looked at extreme flooding in October and
November 2000. It concluded that, though the events were extreme,
they could not in themselves be attributed to climate change.
However, heavy rainfall and peak river flows of similar duration have
been increasing in frequency and magnitude over the past 50 years.
This pattern is consistent with model predictions of how human-
induced climate change affects rainfall.




Will climate change mean that we will see more severe weather
events?

Experts predict that fierce storms and floods, such as those that
brought chaos to parts of the UK in October 2000, are likely to become
more frequent in the future. Over the past 100 years, warming has
been accompanied by a reduction in the frequency of frosts and an
increase in the number of heatwaves in many parts of the world. The
amount of rainfall is getting heavier in some countries in terms of
volume per downpour.

Weather forecasts arent always accurate a few days ahead, so
how can you possibly predict what climate over the next 100
years?

Although they are made by the same sort of mathematical model,
weather forecasts and climate predictions are really quite different. A
weather forecast tells us what the weather (for example, temperature
or rainfall) is going to be at a certain place and time over the next few
days.
A climate prediction tells us about changes in the average climate, its
variability and extremes. So, it might say that Somerset, in 4060
years time, will have, on average 25% more rain in winter with three
times the current number of heavy rainfall events. It not forecast that
it will be raining in Somerset on the morning of 15 October 2044.

Will ice sheets melt with climate change?

The two major ice sheets are on Greenland and in the Antarctic. The
Greenland Ice Sheet contains enough water to contribute about 7 m to
sea level, and the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS), which is the part of
the Antarctic ice sheet most vulnerable to climate change, contains


about 6 m.
A sustained rise in local temperatures of about 3 C, equivalent to a
global-mean warming of about 1.5 C, which is likely to be reached by
the end of the century if man-made emissions are not controlled,
would melt the Greenland Ice Sheet, although it is estimated that this
would take a few thousand years. A major collapse of the WAIS is
thought to be very unlikely during the 21st century, although recent
measurements suggest that contributions to sea-level rise from this
source may be greater than previously estimated.


Is climate change affecting tropical cyclones?

The impact of climate change specifically global warming caused by
the burning of fossil fuels on tropical cyclone activity is the subject
of ongoing debate and research in the scientific community. Although
there is no clear consensus on whether global warming is currently
having any measurable impact on tropical cyclones, climate models
indicate that there may be an increase in tropical cyclone intensity in
the future, while tropical cyclone frequency will either remain
unchanged or decrease.

Is climate change a bad thing?

There will be winners as well as losers. Warmer weather would allow a
longer growing season in temperate latitude and reduce the need for
heating. However, reduced rainfall in tropical regions can lead to the
expansion of deserts and rises in sea level would threaten low-lying
coasts and islands.

Can anything be done about climate change?


On present evidence, global warming could be slowed if emissions of
methane and carbon dioxide were reduced. The main artificial sources
of these gases are (a) for methane agriculture, emissions from
landfill sites and natural gas and (b) for carbon dioxide the burning
of fossil fuels, cutting down and burning trees. This may seem to be
something that only governments or large organisations can tackle,
but the individual can also contribute significantly by, for example, not
using a car unnecessarily and recycling.








3.Chronology of major attacks in India since
2001
Oct. 1, 2001 - Militants storm the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly complex,
killing about 35 people.
Dec. 13 - More than a dozen people, including five gunmen, killed in an attack on
parliament in New Delhi.
Sept. 24, 2002 - Militants with guns and explosives attack the Akshardham Hindu
temple in Gujarat, killing 31 people and wounding more than 80.
May 14 - Militants attack an army camp near Kashmir's winter capital, Jammu, killing
more than 30, including wives and children of soldiers.
March 13, 2003 - A bomb attack on a commuter train in Mumbai kills 11 people.
Aug. 25 - Two almost simultaneous car bombs kill about 60 in Mumbai.
Aug. 15, 2004 - Bomb explodes in Assam, killing 16 people, mostly schoolchildren,
and wounding dozens
Oct. 29, 2005 - Sixty-six people are killed when three blasts rip through markets
in New Delhi.


March 7, 2006 - At least 15 people are killed and 60 wounded in three explosions in
the pilgrimage city of Varanasi.
July 11 - More than 180 people are killed in seven bomb explosions at railway
stations and on trains in Mumbai, blamed on Islamist militants.
Sept. 8 - At least 32 people are killed in a series of explosions, including one near a
mosque, in Malegaon town, 260 km northeast of Mumbai.
Feb. 19, 2007 - Two bombs explode aboard a train bound from India to Pakistan,
burning to death at least 66 passengers, most of them Pakistanis.
May 18, 2007 - A bomb explodes during Friday prayers at a historic mosque in
Hyderabad, killing 11 worshippers. Police later shoot dead five people in clashes with
hundreds of enraged Muslims who protest violently against the attack.
Jaipur, May 13, 2008: 68 people killed in serial bombings.

Ahmedabad, July 26, 2008: 57 people killed after 20-odd synchronised bombs went
off within less than two hours.

New Delhi, Sep 13, 2008: 26 people killed in six blasts across the city.

Assam, Oct 30, 2008: At least 45 killed (figure can change) and over 100 injured in
18 terror bombings across Assam.

Mumbai, Nov 26, 2008: Several killed and many more injured in seven terror
attacks targetting mostly foreigners' hangout places.






4.Naxalism-Frequently asked questions
Who are the Naxalites]?
The Naxalites, also sometimes called the Naxals, is a loose term used
to define groups waging a violent struggle on behalf of landless
labourers and tribal people against landlords and others. The Naxalites
say they are fighting oppression and exploitation to create a classless
society. Their opponents say the Naxalites are terrorists oppressing
people in the name of a class war.
How many Naxalite groups are there?
Many groups operate under different names. The Communist Party of
India (Marxist-Leninist) is the political outfit that propagates the


Naxalite ideology. There are front organisations and special outfits for
specific groups such as the Indian People's Front.
The two main groups involved in violent activities, besides many
factions and smaller outfits, are the People's War, the group many
believe is responsible for the attempt on Naidu, and the Maoist
Communist Centre.
Where do they operate?
The most prominent area of operation is a broad swathe across the
very heartland of India, often considered the least developed area of
this country. The Naxalites operate mostly in the rural and Adivasi
areas, often out of the continuous jungles in these regions. Their
operations are most prominent in (from North to South) Jharkhand,
Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh eastern Maharashtra the Telengana
(northwestern) region of Andhra Pradesh, and western Orissa. It will
be seen that these areas are all inland, from the coastline.
The People's War is active mainly in Andhra Pradesh, western Orissa
and eastern Maharashtra while the Maoist Communist Centre is active
in Bihar, Jharkhand and northern Chhattisgarh.
Who do they represent?
The Naxalites claim to represent the most oppressed people in India,
those who are often left untouched by India's development and
bypassed by the electoral process. Invariably, they are the Adivasis,
Dalits, and the poorest of the poor, who work as landless labourers for
a pittance, often below India's mandated minimum wages.
The criticism against the Naxalites is that despite their ideology, they
have over the years become just another terrorist outfit, extorting
money from middle-level landowners (since rich landowners invariably
buy protection), and worse, even extorting and dominating the lives of
the Adivasis and villagers who they claim to represent in the name of
providing justice.
Who do the Naxalites target?


Ideologically, the Naxalites claim they are against India as she exists
currently. They believe that Indians are still to acquire freedom from
hunger and deprivation and that the rich classes -- landlords,
industrialists, traders, etc -- control the means of production. Their
final aim is the overthrow of the present system, hence the targeting
of politicians, police officers and men, forest contractors, etc.
At a more local level, the Naxalites have invariably targeted landlords
in the villages, often claiming protection money from them. Naxalites
have also been known to claim 'tax' from the Adivasis and landless
farmers in areas where their writ runs more than that of the
government.
When did this movement start? How did it get its name?
The earliest manifestation of the movement was the Telengana
Struggle in July 1948 (100 years after the Paris Communes were first
set up, coining the word Communist). This struggle was based on the
ideology of China's Mao Zedong, with the aim of creating an Indian
revolution. Not surprisingly, the ideology remains strong in this region
of Andhra Pradesh.
But the Naxalite movement took shape after some members of the
Communist Party of India (Marxist) split to form the Communist Party
of India (Marxist-Leninist), after the former agreed to participate in
elections and form a coalition government in West Bengal. Charu
Mazumdar led the split.
On May 25, 1967, in Naxalbari village in Darjeeling district, northern
West Bengal, local goons attacked a tribal who had been given land by
the courts under the tenancy laws. In retaliation, the tribals attacked
landlords and claimed the land. From this 'Naxalbari Uprising' came
the word Naxalite.
Was it ever popular?
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Naxalite movement
was popular. There were reports of brilliant students, including from


the famed IITs, dropping out of college to join the struggle for the
rights of the tribals and landless labourers. But as has been the case
with many movements set up with high principles, over the years the
Naxalite movement is seen as having lost its vision and having
compromised its principles. Nevertheless, the fact that it has an
endless supply of men and women joining its ranks shows that many
still believe in its cause.
Do the Naxalites face much opposition?
Yes they do, almost from the entire Indian political spectrum.
Noticeably, when the Naxalite movement first started in the late
sixties in West Bengal, it was the CPI-M [that cracked down hardest on
the Maoist rebels, with ample support from the Congress at the
Centre. At village levels, the Naxalites' terror tactics have spawned
local armies to provide protection to the landlords and others. The
most infamous of these is the Ranvir Sena in Bihar and Jharkhand,
formed by Bhumihar caste landlords, which kill tribals, Dalits and
landless labourers either in retaliation or to enforce their domination.

5.NAXALBARI (1967): THE NAXALITE
MOVEMENT IN INDIA

The 'spectre of Communism' maybe no longer haunts Europe from the
pages of The Communist Manifesto. But it continues to haunt the
ruling powers of India from its vast and volatile rural hinterland - in
the shape of Naxalism. The armed movement carrying that name
which was born in the turbulent 1960s, still survives in India. It has an
abiding appeal among the dispossessed and underprivileged rural poor
in several parts of India, who see in it a hope to free themselves from
their present miserable conditions. The police and bureaucrats of at
least eight Indian states (Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya
Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, which
comprise a large chunk of the Indian land mass, and accounts for
more than half of the Indian population), meet at regular intervals to
devise ways and means to check the armed guerillas who operate in a
narrow belt of Naxalite pockets that stretches across these states.

The Naxalite movement takes its name from a peasant uprising which


took place in May 1967 at Naxalbari a place on the north-eastern tip
of India situated in the state of West Bengal. It was led by armed
Communist revolutionaries, who two years later were to form a party
the CPI (M-L), or the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist).
Under the leadership of their ideologue, a 49-year old Communist,
Charu Mazumdar, they defined the objective of the new movement as
'seizure of power through an agrarian revolution'. The strategy was
the elimination of the feudal order in the Indian countryside to free the
poor from the clutches of the oppressive landlords and replace the old
order with an alternative one that would implement land reforms. The
tactics to achieve it was through guerilla warfare by the peasants to
eliminate the landlords and build up resistance against the state's
police force which came to help the landlords, and thus gradually set
up 'liberated zones' in different parts of the country that would
eventually coalesce into a territorial unit under Naxalite hegemony a
la Yenan of China!
The uprising at Naxalbari was crushed by the police within a few
months. But although defeated, it unleashed a flow of events which
escalated over the years into a political movement that brought about
far-reaching changes in India's socio-cultural scene. The fact is that
despite the continuing use of the most repressive methods by the
police to crush its cadres - and in spite of a series of splits that had
fissured the movement during the last three or four decades,
Naxalism as an ideology has become a force to reckon with in India.
Its continuity can be explained by the persistence and exacerbation of
the basic causes that gave it birth feudal exploitation and oppression
over the rural poor (who constitute the majority of the Indian people),
and the Indian state's repressive policies to silence them whenever
they protest.
The Historical Background
The birth and development of the Naxalite movement under the
leadership of the CPI(M-L) should also be located in the contemporary
global context of the 1960s.
This was the period in Europe, Asia and America, when new radical
struggles were breaking out, marked by the rereading of Marx, the
rediscovery of the sources of revolutionary humanism and the revival
of the ideals that inspired individual courage and the readiness to
sacrifice for a cause. These trends were reflected in the national
liberation struggle of the Vietnamese people; in the civil rights and
anti-war movements in the USA; in the students' agitations in Western
Europe; in Che Guevara's self-sacrifice in the jungles of Bolivia in
pursuit of the old dream of international solidarity of all
revolutionaries; and in China's Cultural
Revolution which, in spite of being derailed by excesses, errors and


crimes committed in the name of `class-struggle', initially began as a
campaign for putting an end to bureaucratic authoritarianism and
transforming the individual. The Naxalite movement was a part of this
contemporary, worldwide impulse among radicals to return to the
roots of revolutionary idealism. In the Indian context, it took the form
of going back to the source of all revolutions in the Third World the
peasantry, which had a long tradition of fighting against imperialism
and feudalism. The Naxalite leaders drew inspiration from the Indian
peasant jacqueries of the18th and 19th centuries (which were directed
against the British colonialists and their Indian landed agents), and the
more modern organized armed peasants' struggles led by Communists
in Telengana in south India in the late 1940s, as well as the
contemporary Vietnamese war of liberation and other global
demonstrations of protest.
Ironically enough, although the uprising in Naxalbari in May 1967 was
crushed by the police within two months, the Naxalite ideology gained
rapid currency in other parts of West Bengal and India within a few
years. By the early 1970s, the Naxalite movement had spread from
far-flung areas like Andhra Pradesh and Kerala in the south, to Bihar in
the east, and Uttar Pradesh and Punjab in the north. Srikakulam in
Andhra Pradesh in particular became a mini-`liberated zone' for a brief
spell, when Naxalite guerillas drove out the landlords, and set up
alternative institutions of administration in several hundreds of
villages. In parts of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the Naxalites succeeded
in mobilizing the peasantry to recover lands that they had lost to the
moneylender-cum-landlord class (to whom they had mortgaged their
properties in lieu of money) and carry their harvested crops to their
homes. In Punjab rich landlords and policemen were targeted by
bands of Naxalites. In West Bengal itself - the birthplace of the
Naxalite movement armed peasants' struggles broke out in Midnapur
and Birbhum, where some villages passed over to total Naxalite
control during the 1969-70 period. Incidentally, in Andhra Pradesh and
in West Bengal, the Naxalites found their main support among the
aboriginal tribal communities, who had been the most oppressed and
marginalized in Indian society the Girijans in Andhra Pradesh and
the Santhals in West Bengal.
The situation was alarming enough for the Indian government to
investigate into its causes. It set up a committee to compile a report.
Prepared in 1969, and entitled The Causes and Nature of Current
Agrarian Tensions, the report acknowledged: "The basic cause of
unrest, namely, the defective implementation of laws enacted to
protect the interests of the tribals, remains..." It then added: "unless
this is attended to, it would not be possible to win the confidence of
the tribals whose leadership has been taken over by the extremists."
(Emphasis added). The term extremist is still being used by the Indian


officials to describe the Naxalites, or any one resorting to armed
resistance against the Indian government.


While the Indian countryside saw extensive guerilla actions, Calcutta
(now known as Kolkata) in West Bengal, became the center of
Naxalite urban violence from the beginning of the 1970s. Young cadres
of the CPI(M-L) targeted police personnel and political rivals. They
planned to build up an arsenal by mass scale snatching of arms and
ammunition from police stations. These youth were mainly middle
class Bengali students who had been inspired by the Naxalite ideology
of agrarian revolution. Some went to the villages, lived and worked
with the rural poor among whom they propagated the Naxalite
ideology, fought shoulder to shoulder with them against the police,
and laid down their lives. Those who remained in Calcutta hoped to
supplement the rural movement with such violent urban actions that
would keep the police and para-military forces fully bogged down in
Calcutta, and thus cripple their capacity to intervene in the rural areas.
But they underestimated the military strength of the Indian state.
Instead of fully implementing land reforms to alleviate their grievances
- as suggested by many impartial observers as well as its own
previously mentioned committee of 1969 - the Indian government
chose the simplistic path of military suppression of peasant
grievances. It unleashed a reign of terror on the Naxalite bases and
the villagers who supported them. In Srikakulam, para-military forces
swooped down upon Girijan villages, arrested thousands of young
tribals, captured and killed their Naxalite leaders, and resorted to the
policy of setting up `strategic hamlets' (as the US did in Vietnam)
where entire tribal villages were removed, so that the mass base of
the CPI(M-L) could be dispersed. In Birbhum in West Bengal, the
Indian army was deployed to encircle the Naxalite-controlled villages,
close in and kill the leaders. Thousands of their Santhal tribal followers
were thrown behind bars.
Apart from the state repression, several splits within the Naxalite
movement in the 1970s weakened its capacity to resist the police and
army offensive. Many among Charu Mazumdar's comrades and
followers became critical of his tactics of assassination of individual
`class enemies', his indifference to mass fronts like trade unions (that
led to the isolation of the Naxalites from the industrial workers), and
the growing bureaucratization of the party organization. As a result,
the CPI(M-L) split into several factions often fighting among
themselves. This fragmentation in the Naxalite ranks helped the Indian
state to suppress them for the time being.


By 1972, the Indian state had succeeded in defeating the Naxalite
rebellion to some extent its main trophy being the capture of the
ideologue Charu Mazumdar from a Calcutta hideout on July 16, 1972.
Mazumdar died in police custody 12 days after his arrest raising
suspicions about the treatment meted out to him by the police. The
movement continued even after his death with sporadic battles
between the police and the Naxalites in far-flung villages in Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal and other states. But it faced increasing
repression from the state. By 1973, the number of Naxalite activists
and supporters held in different jails all over India had swelled to
32,000. News of their ill-treatment compelled more than 300
academics from all over the world including Noam Chomsky and
Simone de Beauvoir to sign a note protesting against the Indian
government's violation of prison rules, and send it to New Delhi on
August 15, 1974 the 27th anniversary of India's Independence day.
A month later, Amnesty International released a damning report,
listing cases of illegal detention and torture of Naxalite prisoners in
Indian jails. Such attempts by academics and human rights
organizations whether in India and abroad to highlight the plight of
these prisoners, were soon snuffed out by the Indian Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi, when she declared Emergency on June 26, 1975, which
imposed censorship on publication of news, apart from clamping down
upon public demonstrations of protest. With military suppression of
their bases in the villages, dissemination of their leaders by the police,
dissensions within their ranks, and choked out from any democratic
avenue of expressing their grievances, the Naxalites reached the end
of a phase of their movement in the late 1970s.
The new phase and the present situation
It was only after the lifting of the Emergency and the coming to power
of the Janata Party (an alliance of non-Congress and anti-Indira
Gandhi parties) at the Centre in New Delhi after the 1977 elections,
and following a wide scale movement organized by various human
rights groups in India and abroad, that the Naxalites were released
from jails. The different Naxalite factions and their leaders found an
opportunity to meet and chart out their new path of action in the light
of their past experiences. Although committed to the original strategy
of eliminating the feudal order in rural India, they parted ways on the
question of tactics - one group of followers deciding to lay stress on
the parliamentary path of elections (e.g. the Liberation group of the
CPI - M-L, concentrated in Bihar), and the others preferring to go back
to the path of guerilla warfare, like the PWG - People's War Group - in
Andhra Pradesh, and MCC - Maoist Communist Centre - in Bihar.
During the last two decades since the 1980s, these two different
streams of the Naxalite movement drifted along with their respective
tactics often fighting among themselves.


But during this period, it is these armed groups which have emerged
as the main challenge to the Indian state. They have also expanded
their area of operations (from their old pockets in West Bengal, Bihar
and Andhra Pradesh in the 1970s) to new guerilla zones in other
states like Orissa, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya
Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh in the new millennium. Their main support
base in these states are the poorest and the most deprived classes
the landless and tribal people who are ousted from their homes by up-
coming industrial projects, are being denied access to their traditional
forest resources, regularly exploited by landowners and money lenders
and persecuted by the police, and who continue to suffer from non-
availability of education and health facilities in their far-flung and
inaccessible villages.
Apart from expanding their guerilla zones within India, the PWG, MCC
and other smaller armed Communist groups have been able to build a
network with similar Communist revolutionary organizations in the
neighbouring states of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal under
the banner of the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and
Organizations of South Asia. Their representatives met in a guerilla
zone in eastern India in July 2003, to chalk out future strategy of
coordination of their activities. All these South Asian Maoist parties are
also members of a larger international organization called the
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement.
It should be pointed out however that despite their survival for almost
four decades, the Naxalites do not yet control any large area
comparable to the `liberated zone' that the Chinese Communists could
establish in Yenan within a decade or so in the 1930-40 period, or the
sizable tract that the Maoists occupy in neighbouring Nepal today.
They have not been able to reach out to the masses of the peasantry
in the vast countryside of other parts of India, and have expanded
only to a few isolated pockets and stretches of areas inhabited mainly
by tribal and landless poor. Closeted in their rural underground
shelters, the Naxalite leaders have ignored the task of setting up
bases among the large number of workers both in the organized
industrial and the unorganized sectors. They have also failed to build
up a regular army like the Chinese People's Liberation Army, or the
Vietnamese military organization that helped both the Chinese and
the Vietnamese to effectively fight their enemies.
These shortcomings have both crippled and distorted the character of
the Naxalite movement. The failure to establish a `liberated zone' has
frustrated their original strategy of setting up an alternative order to
bring about agrarian and social reforms. Instead, all their energies are
now devoted to defensive actions to preserve their pockets of
influence, and offensive assaults which are degenerating into acts of


terrorism against soft targets like village headmen or junior
government employees.
The main villains always escape, as evident from their abortive
attempt on the life of the Andhra Pradesh chief minister in October
last. Moreover, the Naxalites in spite of their belief in armed
resistance, have shied away from the task of squarely facing the
violence of the Hindu communal forces the new fascist face of the
Indian ruling powers who are increasingly occupying the political
space in the country, and are also burrowing holes into the Naxalite
support base.
If the Naxalites, along with other democratic and secular forces fail to
resist this advance of Hindu fascism, their movement may soon be
reduced to an insignificant factor in the current Indian political
scenario, lacking any decisive power to change the balance of forces in
favour of a revolutionary transformation of Indian society.
Lasting impact of Naxalism
But even if the movement declines and is suppressed, its ideology will
continue to threaten the Indian ruling powers as long as they fail to
put an end to the grinding poverty and social oppression that crush
the Indian poor. Their pitiable living conditions nourish the soil for the
rejuvenation of Naxalism. What is peculiar to Naxalism is not the
physical occupation of and administrative control over land by its
leaders and followers, but its lasting popularity among the
economically impoverished and socially oppressed rural people.
We cannot but acknowledge that Naxalbari was a water-shed in the
recent history of India in more than one sense. It sensitized Indian
society to the desperate efforts made by the rural poor to escape the
intolerable conditions of economic oppression and social humiliation. It
served as a catalyst in West Bengal (the birthplace of the movement)
for the introduction of some limited land reforms by the Left Front
state government there. Most of the progressive trends in Indian
social activism today (like the growth of voluntary organizations
working among the underprivileged and powerless, or the role of the
media in exposing atrocities on the depressed castes and the landless,
or the affirmative actions by human rights activists as agents of
entitlement, acting on behalf of the dispersed social groups) can be
traced indirectly to the issues raised by, or associated with, the
Naxalite movement. Hand in hand with these political and social
developments, Naxalism has left an indelible imprint on modern Indian
culture. Apart from a rich crop of poems and songs composed by the
participants and sympathizers (both urban and rural), major works of
fiction, theatre and films have been produced in different Indian
languages, dealing directly with the movement, or keeping it as the
background. To understand today's India, it is essential to listen to


these voices that describe the tortuous odyssey of a political
movement that had been born from the womb of the bleeding Indian
countryside.


































6.Separate Telangana state movement
1969 Movement
In the following years after the formation of Andhra Pradesh state,
however, the Telangana people had a number of complaints about how
the agreements and guarantees were implemented. Discontent with
the 1956 Gentleman's agreement intensified in January 1969 when the


guarantees that had been agreed on were supposed to lapse. Student
agitation for the continuation of the agreement began at Osmania
University in Hyderabad and spread to other parts of the region.
Government employees and opposition members of the state
legislative assembly swiftly threatened "direct action" in support of the
students. This movement, also known as Telangana movement, led to
widespread violence and deaths of hundreds of people and students of
this Telangana region. Approximately 360 students gave their lives in
this movement.
Although the Congress faced dissension within its ranks, its leadership
stood against additional linguistic states, which were regarded as
"anti-national." As a result, defectors from the Congress, led by M.
Chenna Reddy, founded the Telangana People's Association (Telangana
Praja Samithi). Despite electoral successes, however, some of the new
party leaders gave up their agitation in September 1971 and, much to
the disgust of many separatists, rejoined the safer political haven of
the Congress ranks.
Movement in 1990-2004
The emotions and forces generated by the movement were not strong
enough, however, for a continuing drive for a separate state until
1990s when Bharatiya Janata Party, promised a separate Telangana
state if they came to power. But the BJP could not create a separate
Telangana state because of the opposition from its coalition partner,
Telugu Desam Party. These developments brought new life into the
separatist Telangana movement by year 2000. Congress party MLAs
from the Telangana region, supported a separate Telangana state and
formed the Telangana Congress Legislators Forum. In another
development, a new party called Telangana Rashtra Samithi (or TRS)
was formed with the single point agenda of creating a separate
Telangana state, with Hyderabad as its capital lead by Kalvakuntla
Chandrasekhar Rao popularily known as KCR.
Proponents of a separate Telangana state feel.. all the agreements,
accords, formulas, plans and assurances on the floor of legislature and
Lok Sabha, in last 50+ years, could not be honoured and Telangana
was forced to remain neglected, exploited and backward. The
experiment to remain as one State proved to be a futile exercise and
therefore, separation is found to be the best solution.
2004 and later
Flag of TRS
In 2004, for Assembly and Parliament elections, the Congress party
and the TRS had an electoral alliance in the Telangana region with the
promise of a separate Telangana State Congress came to power in the
state and formed a coalition government at the centre. TRS joined the


coalition government in 2004 and was successful in making a separate
Telangana state a part of the common minimum program (CMP) of the
coalition government. In September 2006 TRS withdrew support for
the Congress led coalition government at the centre on the grounds of
indecision by the government over the delivery of its electoral promise
to create Telangana.
In December 2006, the TRS won the by-election to the Karimnagar
parliamentary constituency with a record margin.
There was pressure on the Congress party to create a Telangana state
in 2008.
All TRS legislators in Parliament and in State (4MPs, 16MLAs, 3MLCs)
resigned in the 1st week of March 2008 and forced by-elections to
increase the pressure on Congress party, and to intensify the
movement.
By-elections for the 16 MLA seats, 4 MP seats were held May 29, 2008.
During the election campaign the TRS party said it is a referendum on
a Telangana state but both Congress and TDP parties said it is not a
referendum on Telangana and also said that they are not opposed to
the formation of Telangana state. To the disappointment of Telangana
proponents TRS retained only 7 out of 16 MLA seats and 2 out of 4 MP
seats after the by-elections.
In June 2008, Devender Goud, who is considered number two in the
TDP, a politbureau member and Deputy Leader of the Telugu Desam
Legislature Party, resigned from the party saying he would devote his
time and energy to the formation of a separate Telangana state. In
July 2008, Mr Goud along with some other leaders like Mr. E Peddi
Reddy formed a new party called Nava Telangana Praja Party.
On 9 October 2008, in a historical turnaround from its 26-year history
TDP announced its support for the creation of Telengana.
Symbolic declaration of statehood
The Nava Telangana Party, led by the former home minister of Andhra
Pradesh, T Devender Goud, declared Telangana as a separate province
within India on November 2, 2008. Konda Laxman Bapuji announced
that "We solemnly declare statehood for Telangana on November 2,
2008." Goud released ten pigeons in the air symbolising the ten
districts of the region, while he also unfurled the national flag on the
occasion. Along with his party activists he was later arrested when
they tried to barge into the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat to change the
name plate - from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana. A scuffle then
followed between the police and the NTP workers before the party
workers were taken to the Chikkadapalli police station. Other NTP


workers soon descended on the scene and staged a dharnato protest
against the arrest.
2009 and later
Ahead of the 2009 General Elections in India all the major parties in AP
supported Telangana state.Congress still says it is committed to
Telangana statehood. But it does not have convincing answer when it
asked why it could not create Telangana state in last 5 years. Also it
claims Muslim minorities are opposed to creation of separate state
along with majority people..
TDP promised to work for Telangana statehood. TRS joined the
Mahakutami(or grand alliance) with TDP and left parties to defeat
congress party for cheating Telangana people on statehood.
Praja Rajyam Party(PRP), newly founded by film star Chiranjeevi, too
supports Telangana statehood. NTP merged with PRP after it realized
that there is not enough political space for two sub-regional Telangana
parties with Telananga statehood as main agenda.
The BJP again announced their policy of having smaller states and will
create 2 more states Telangana and Gorkhaland if they win the
election. They also said that smaller states are better governed and
developed.
All political parties, including some Telangana congress leaders,
criticized Chief Minister YSR, when he changed his stand from pro-
Telangana and gave anti-Telangana statements right after the polls to
Telagana ended.
Congress returned to power both at center and state. TRS and grand
alliance lost the elections.
In Dec 2009, TRS president, KCR started fast-unto-death demanding
Congress party to introduce Telangana bill in Parliament. As his health
deteriorates, the Telangana movement itensifies and it becomes an
issue which Andhraites want ended.










7.Statehood for Telangana: new
imperatives (THE HINDU)
C.H. Hanumantha Rao
A genuine response to the present discontent in Telangana would be to
embark upon a fresh round of land reforms and other socio-economic
measures.
IN THE recent by-election to the Lok Sabha from Karimnagar
constituency in Andhra Pradesh, the voters were confronted with a
choice between `development' (within an integrated State) and a
`separate Telangana.' The verdict went overwhelmingly in favour of a
separate Telangana. By attributing this verdict to the `sentiment' (for
Telangana), some sections of the political leadership are evading the
real issue. There was no religious or ethnic `sentiment,' not even of
language, at issue in this election. No doubt, some assertion of
`regional identity' can be read into the result, but this does not defy
rational explanation. The simple and straightforward explanation is
that the people perceive that `development' in the sense of
equitable share in water resources, jobs, opportunities for enterprise
and career advancement, and adequate voice in political decision-
making is not possible within the integrated State and that separate
statehood alone can ensure justice for them.
The demand for separation is far more widespread now than in 1969
when the agitation for a separate Telangana was first launched. It has
now engulfed farmers, youth, and women on a much lager scale. The
movement of the late 1960s petered out not just because of the
opportunism displayed by the leaders of the movement or due to the
repressive measures of the state, as is often made out.
It was in the early 1970s that Indira Gandhi's slogan of `Garibi Hatao'
caught the imagination of the poor throughout the country. N.T. Rama
Rao was another charismatic leader with a pro-poor and gender-
sensitive agenda who virtually took the place of Indira Gandhi in
Andhra Pradesh in the 1980s. Their credibility with the common people
of Telangana was primarily responsible for sweeping the statehood
issue under the carpet for quite some time.
However, the policies initiated by these charismatic leaders could not
be sustained for long because of the absence of commitment among
their successors. The period following the demise of these leaders
witnessed a major shift in socio-economic policies. The neglect of
agriculture, rural development, and the social sectors in the post-


liberalisation period and the consequent rise in rural distress brought
into sharp focus the rise in regional disparities in development.
For example, in the 1980s, the per capita GSDP (Gross State Domestic
Product) of the four richest States in the country was 100 per cent
higher than that of the bottom four States Bihar, Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa. But by 1990s this disparity rose to 200
per cent.
What is true of the rise in inter-State disparities in development would
be true of regional disparities within some of the larger States. For,
the factors giving rise to such disparities are common.
A disquieting feature of the current political scene in Andhra Pradesh is
that those still interested in the integrated State refuse to learn the
right lessons from the developments since the first agitation for a
separate Telangana started. Otherwise, they would not have initiated a
diversionary move like the constitution of the Second States'
Reorganisation Commission (SRC). Fifty years ago, the first SRC had
recommended the formation of Telangana as a separate State in
response to the simmering discontent in the region. The new SRC, in
the present circumstances of widespread discontent, is most likely to
endorse the recommendation of the first SRC.
If the motivation behind the constitution of the SRC is to avoid
embarrassment from the people of the Andhra region in case
Telangana is conceded immediately, and eventually to bring them
round to the inevitability of separate Statehood for Telangana, then
the bargain may prove to be too costly. For, this would open up a
Pandora's box in terms of innumerable demands just as well as
unjust for the constitution of separate States in the country. In any
case, the move will fail to satisfy the people in Telangana, as they are
no longer gullible, especially when the powers that be have refused to
implement the recommendation of the first SRC.
Short of conceding separate statehood, a genuine response to the
present discontent in Telangana would be to embark upon a fresh
round of land reforms and other socio-economic measures affecting
the large majority of the disadvantaged sections; constitute regional
planning committees consisting of elected representatives as well as
experts; and make the whole planning process, including the sharing
of resources, transparent by making it accountable to the elected
representatives. The suggested special package of Rs.10,000 crore for
Telangana could be an additionality to the just share of the region in
the existing resources. The execution of this package could be made
an integral part of the regional planning process.
More than 70 per cent of the population in Telangana belongs to the
disadvantaged social groups: Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and


OBCs. Agrarian reforms were the prime agenda for the peasant
movement in the 1940s. However, not enough time was available for
this process of radical social transformation to run its course. In fact, it
was interrupted with the integration of Telangana with the Andhra
region, so that it still remains an unfinished task.
In a larger and heterogeneous State like Andhra Pradesh, there is no
adequate perception of this problem by the dominant political
leadership that hails basically from the developed parts of the State.
Regional planning is not a new or uncharted course in Andhra Pradesh.
This was tried earlier but soon abandoned for lack of earnestness and
political will. And also because of the wrong notion that regional
planning through elected representatives and the dissemination of
relevant information would prove to be divisive by breeding
regionalism. However, experience has amply demonstrated that shying
away from regional planning through representative institutions and
withholding information would produce the opposite result of
intensifying the feelings of injustice and generating the demands for
separation.
More than 50 years ago, the SRC noted the fears of Telangana and
anticipated the adverse social consequences if Andhra and Telangana
were brought together to form an integrated State. The SRC
emphasised that, within a time period of five years, two important
issues needed to be sorted out: developing infrastructure in Telangana
so as to bring it on a par with other regions; and preparing the people
of Telangana for integration with Andhra through consensus. In
practice, however, consensus of the people who do not belong to
Telangana has been the guiding factor.
In pursuance of the gentlemen's agreement of 1956, the Telangana
Regional Committee (TRC) was formed with elected representatives.
The responsibility of this committee was to assess the available
resources and allocate them to ensure proper development of the
region. But in 1973 the TRC was abolished under the Six-Point
Formula and the Regional Planning and Development Committees were
constituted which, unlike the TRC, were not accountable to the elected
representatives. However, these Committees too have been abolished.
There is virtually no mechanism now for regional planning.
The funding
As for the Finance Commission transfer to States, 25 per cent of
devolution is based on population and as much as 75 per cent is based
on criteria such as per capita income and other indicators of
backwardness. Thus the per capita devolution has been higher for
Andhra Pradesh on account of the lower per capita income of
Telangana. Therefore, the financial viability of a regional development


plan for Telangana, or for that matter of a separate State, is beyond
doubt.
But is regional planning through Regional Development Committees
and participatory institutions workable in a larger State composed of
heterogeneous regions? Experience with politics of planning at the
State level shows otherwise.
Therefore, it can legitimately be argued that the political commitment
necessary for focussed attention to the problems of growth and equity
can be ensured only in the smaller States, which are relatively
homogeneous.
Take the case of Uttarakhand. The annual growth rate of its GSDP
accelerated and reached the double-digit level in six years since it was
formed.
It is perhaps too much to expect the requisite foresight and
statesmanship from the political leaders in Andhra Pradesh, who, in
fact, have a track record of overpowering the central leadership,
including even a towering personality like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, on
the issue of separate statehood for Telangana.
But Nehru's vision and the prophecy of the SRC are knocking at our
door again. One hopes that the present national leadership would
positively and wisely respond to this call.
(The writer is Chairman, Centre for Economic and Social Studies,
Hyderabad.)
























8.Women's reservation bill - A social necessity,
national obligation
- By Rajindar Sachar

History does not repeat itself is a self-evident maxim which most
people tend to accept without demur. But now we are witness to
seeing history being repeated every year in Parliament in the matter of
hypocrisy of all political parties in the context of the Women's
Reservation Bill.

Every political party for the last six years has been assuring its support
to the Bill which disarms women activists. And then a farce rather than
a tragedy is played out by so-called radical politicians, jumping into
the well of the House, tearing copies of the Bill and making impossible
for proceedings to continue - the House gets adjourned, the Bill is
thrown into the dustbin till it is revived in subsequent years with the
same result. It is time this mockery stopped, considering that the
Congress, the BJP and Left parties proclaim that they are for the Bill in
the present form, and really want it to become a law.

Women are not asking for grace and charity. Their contribution to the
cause of nation-building exceeds that of men. An International Labour
Organisation study shows that "while women represent 50 percent of
the world adult population and a third of the official labour force, they
perform nearly two-third of all working hours, receive a tenth of world
income and own less than one percent of world property." Therefore,
reservation for women is not a bounty but only an honest recognition
of their contribution to social development.

An alternative to the Bill suggests amending the Representation of
People Act, 1951, to compel political parties to mandatorily nominate
women candidates for at least one-third of the seats on the pain of


losing recognition. This is politically flawed and not even
constitutionally permissible.

It may be violative of the fundamental rights to form an association
guaranteed under Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution. The only
permissible restrictions are those in the interest of sovereignty and
integrity of India or public order or morality, and such an amendment
would not fall within these.

That apart, this alternative will not achieve the objective behind the
Amendment Bill, because even if a third of women candidates are put
up by political parties, there is no guarantee that the same number will
get elected.

It is freely admitted by all parties that because of the inbuilt prejudice
against women, male candidates will have an unfair advantage in
elections. This aspect is freely admitted even by Left parties. Thus,
parties will tend to allow women candidates to fight elections from
their weak constituencies. Though I am all for the Bill in its present
forms, it is unwise to underestimate the opposition from the male
constituency in Parliament. Given the present instability in political
coalitions, and the material that is in Parliament, to expect one-third of
the male members to accept political hara-kiri is unrealistic. They are
no Gandhians. They will not give up their privileges so easily.

There is also some merit in the objection that the reservation of seats
for women would mean rotation of seats at every general election with
the result that the members will not be able to nurse their
constituencies and also that candidates will be uncertain of anticipating
their future constituencies. This will be thus breaking their link with the
electorate. Notwithstanding these ticklish problems, I would have
continued insisting on the present Bill. But there is another alternative
which can give one-third seats to women without in any way asking
the male members to make the way.

This alternative gets further strength now that the Delimitation
Commission has been asked to adopt the 2001 census for delimiting
the constituencies, and therefore the same inevitable consequences
must follow.

Article 81 provides for the Lok Sabha to have not more than 530
members. Further amendments were made to freeze the number of
Lok Sabha members on the basis of the 1971 census till another
census after 2000 had been published.

Article 82 provides for the allocation of seats upon the completion of
each census. As per the 1971 census, the population of India was


about 54 crores. Now after the 2001 census, it has risen to about 102
crores. So the strength of the Lok Sabha can be easily increased by
one-third to 750 well within the requisite formula. This will take away
the fear of any male member to vacate the present seat. These extra
seats could be dovetailed into double-member constituencies, which
win ensure the reservation of one seat for women and, even
permitting two to be elected, if the other woman candidate gets the
maximum of the votes polled.

This is what happened in former President Giri's case during the 1957
general election when both seats were won by Scheduled Caste
members - one reserved and the other a general seat - because SC
candidate got more votes than Mr. Giri.

The argument that the women's quota wilt be monopolised by urban
women is a red herring. There are about 200 OBC candidates in the
Lok Sabha, it is a stark reality dial, it is not their public service, but
merely the caste configuration that has preferred them. Similar results
will follow even after the reservation for women. The only difference
will be a big Chink in the male bastion. That is the real reason for
opposition by male MPs.
In my view, the provision of a sub-quota for the OBCs runs the risk of
being held as unconstitutional. A sub-quota for Muslim women would
violate secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution, and even an
amendment would be illegal. Article 325 provides for one general
electoral roll for every constituency and mandates that no person shall
be ineligible for incursion on grounds of religion.

In the matter of the fight against injustice and discrimination, women
as a class should not be weakened by seeking to bifurcate them on
caste lines. Reservation for women would check the muddy politics
that the men folk have brought about. It would bring social
consciousness to political life. It will also help in brushing the criminal-
politician nexus - the real danger to our democracy.

Bill, I am afraid, the strategy of women's organisations has been faulty
from the start. Holding seminars or lobbying political leaders in their
offices or on television will not help. All women's organisations,
irrespective of political affiliation, should form a common platform with
a single agenda. It must become a mass social movement and send
out a message to all political parties, warning them that women will
withdraw their backing in the next election if they do not support the
Bill now.

9.Roadblocks to Womens Reservation Bill


The topic of Gender Equality has gained much prominence in this
century. Every progressive nation is working towards achieving
equality for women in all aspects of the social structure. However the
reality is that women are still far behind in many areas in most nations
and there are still some big roadblocks to clear.
The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), in a
report stated:
Though women have progressed relatively slowly in the areas of
education, literacy and employment, there have been encouraging
signs of improvement in womens legislative representation. The
increase in womens share of seats in parliament was attributed mainly
to political measures in several countries, where quotas were
legislated or adopted on a voluntary basis.
As shown in the table below only 17 countries have reached the 30 per
cent benchmark in electing women to national parliaments; many of
these countries are known to have used quotas. In US and Japan
womens share of parliamentary seats were only 16.80 per cent and
9.40 per cent respectively. India is at 99th rank with 10.90 %
representation of women in Parliament.
In the recently constituted 15th Lok Sabha, 59 women MPs are
elected, while it amounts to only 10.90 % representation , a
legislation should have brought 183 MPs , i.e 33% women to Lok
Sabha.
Ran
k
Country
Lower
or
single
House

Upper
House
or
Senate


Electio
ns
Seats
*
Wom
en
% W
Electio
ns
Seats
*
Wom
en
% W
1 Rwanda 9 2008 80 45
56.3
%
10
2003
26 9
34.6
%
2 Sweden 9 2006 349 164
47.0
%

3
South
Africa
4 2009 400 174
43.5
%
4 2009 54 16
29.6
%
4 Cuba 1 2008 614 265
43.2
%

5 Iceland 4 2009 63 27
42.9
%

6 Finland 3 2007 200 83
41.5
%

7 Netherlan 11 150 62 41.3 5 2007 75 26 34.7


ds 2006 % %
8 Argentina
10
2007
255 102
40.0
%
10
2007
72 28
38.9
%
9 Denmark
11
2007
179 68
38.0
%

10 Angola 9 2008 220 82
37.3
%

11
Costa
Rica
2 2006 57 21
36.8
%

12 Spain 3 2008 350 127
36.3
%
3 2008 263 79
30.0
%
13 Norway 9 2005 169 61
36.1
%

14 Belgium 6 2007 150 53
35.3
%
6 2007 71 27
38.0
%
15
Mozambiq
ue
12
2004
250 87
34.8
%

16
New
Zealand
11
2008
122 41
33.6
%

17 Nepal 4 2008 594 197
33.2
%

33 Australia
11
2007
150 40
26.7
%
11
2007
76 27
35.5
%
47 Pakistan 2 2008 338 76
22.5
%
3 2009 100 17
17.0
%
64
Banglade
sh
12
2008
345 64
18.6
%

72
United
States of
America
11
2008
435 73
16.8
%
11
2008
98 15
15.3
%
99 India 4 2009 543 59
10.9
%
7 2008 243 23
9.5
%
Japan 9 2005 480 45 9.4% 7 2007 242 44
18.2
%
In India, we are surprised to see that the Womens Reservation Bill
which propose 33% reservation to women in Parliament is not yet
passed by the parliament. The bill was tabled in the Parliament
thirteen years back. Most political parties have expressed support for
this bill but so far only discussions, debates and deliberations are
taking place in the name of achieving consensus projecting a picture of
a deliberate delay .
It is always very difficult to bring drastic changes in politics and society
overnight since the status quoists plan and bring obstacles for a


change. They never admit that they oppose a change and blame
others for not effecting a change.
Changes are initiated and discussions about a change is set in motion
only when the forces representing alternate voices gain power. We can
recall and compare what happened and is happening in the case of
reservation to other backward classes.
When Viswanath Pratap Singh was the Prime Minister leading a Non
Congress - Non BJP Government, he implemented the
recommendations of Mandal Commission report to provide reservation
for other backward classes who were under- represented in education
and employment at that time. This is one major change in Indian
policy effected when the status quoists were temporarily kept out of
power. This happened after 45 years of achieving independence and
after finding backward classes lagging behind the elites in those four
decades, purely due to their historical and hereditary liability of social
and educational backwardness. But both Congress party and
Bharathiya Janatha party opposed that move and VP Singh was made
to step down from power.
Again only a Non Congress and Non BJP Government of United Front
led by Deve Gowda, tabled 81st constitution amendment bill for
providing reservation to women in legislative bodies for the first time
in 1996. This was to be the next major change since achieving
independence. That too was initiated when the status quoists were
out of power again for a brief period. Since then thirteen years have
passed. Subsequent governments were run by either BJP or Congress
party. And they too tabled the amendment bill but failed to pass it. It
is ironical that these parties are blaming the parties run by backward
class leaders for blocking the womens reservation bill.
It is interesting tp note that those who opposed empowering backward
class people through providing reservation, pretend to support
womens reservation bill while those who are in favour of reservation
for other backward classes are seen opposing the reservation for
women in parliament. I think, this kind of a philosophical clash has
been created deliberately to stall or delay the empowerment of
Women.
Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav, Mr. Lallu Prasad Yadav and Mr.Sharath
Yadav are known to have expressed their opinion against enacting
womens reservation bill in its present form and are demanding
separate reservation for other backward class (OBC) women. These
three leaders are collectively called as Cowbelt politicians or
described as Mandal brigade by partisan elite media.
Samajwadi Party (SP) of Mulayam Singh Yadav opposed the proposed
womens reservation bill, terming it as a conspiracy against the


leaders who have reached the Lok Sabha through hard struggles.
The SP chief also backed the contention of JD(U) leader Sharad Yadav
that if the bill was passed without a consensus, it would amount to
giving poison by force by the ruling class to those opposed to the
legislation as had been done to Greek philosopher Socrates. But the
media twisted the story and was reporting that Sharath Yadav would
consume poison if the bill was passed!
Those who accuse these Yadavs for their opinion conveniently hide a
fact that the major political parties Congress and BJP had always had
opportunities in the past thirteen years while running the
governments, to join together in this issue to corner a two third
majority to bring an amendment to the constitution but are dodging in
the name of consensus form very minor parties. Why is a 100%
consensus needed on this? Is it possible?
The truth is that both BJP and Congress party under the control of
manuwadi established forces were not sincere and wanted to delay
the amendment to constitution as far as possible. Further all the
parties including these major parties are predominantly filled by men.
Now a situation has developed that it can no more be delayed
especially when a women from a foreign country is committed to fulfill
the long spoken promise.
Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women - Millennium
development goal no# 3 set by United Nations
If we have to attribute lesser reasons to Religion for suppressing
women in public life, we have to only blame the very evolution of the
society in favour of men bound by many factors including religion.
Woman of this day carry the past of their ancestors just like the
sections of the society belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
Our Indian society too is hippocratic in its ideas on women. We can
see a poor man worshipping women deities and singing in praise of
goddess in the evening and on returning home by night drunk to his
neck beating his wife and scolding in a lowly language. Same thing
happens in a rich mans house but in a different style.
Can we forget the inhuman practices of the orthodox Hindus such as
shaving the head of young widows and throwing them to a corner of
the house or pushing them in the funeral fire of their husbands? Such
things lasted up to the last century and there were few who argued in
favour of such practices . These were the people who even argued for
the continuation of Devadasi system in the Madras state assembly by
assigning divine purpose for prostitution. Such ideas are still hiding in
the hearts of the so called progressive establishments and they always
try to stop women from actively participating in the social, economic
and political activities. Further, It is convenient for men to


retain women in family life since she nowadays earns more and also
works in the home as an unpaid maid.
One need not belong to any political party, religion or a caste to go
against womens reservation bill. It is just very simple - Men oppose
Womens Reservation Bill because they are Men and particularly more
so since they are Indian men.



10.The Womens Reservation Bill
Empowerment or Besides the Point?

By Martin Lehmann-Waldau
The Indian parliament recently showed intense activity to promote
womens representation in decision-making bodies. Some months
back, a bill was passed that reserves a staggering 50% of seats for
women on the panchayat level. Currently under review and soon to be
debated in the Lok Sabha is the Womens Reservation Bill that
promises 33% of seats in Parliament to women.
To give an international comparison: the current German Parliament
has 32.1 % women in Parliament (1980: a mere 9 %). In Germany, a
legal quota system does not exist. However, parties have internally
introduced certain reservation systems for women (Green Party: 50 %,
Socialist Party 40% etc.). Women however are still largely
underrepresented in top ministries as well as top commercial jobs.
Therefore, I am surprised to notice that this new law that bears the
potential of helping women into important positions within a culture
that sees their role largely within the domain of household and family,
does not get a lot of coverage in media and discussion forums. The
exchanges that do take place are dominated by male politicians such
as Lalu Prasad and Jaswant Singh (both of whom, fortunately, now
have other problems to deal with). A somehow lukewarm statement
came from the young MP Agatha Sangma: Social and economic
empowerment of women is much more important than the womens
reservation bill, which will only give political empowerment (Indian
Express, August 8, 2009).
In my opinion, the quota system in itself is certainly not enough to
overcome a deeply chauvinistic tradition but it certainly is an
important tool for Indian women towards getting more power. The
current female MPs do not seem to be of the opinion that womens
empowerment is a big issue. They refrain from challenging old role
models and belief systems about what women can and should do in


Indian society. The Pink Chaddhi Campaign and the protests around
Valentines Day were a rare example of women standing up for their
rights as a group and a power to be reckoned with.
However, as long as women see themselves primarily as daughters,
sisters and wives, they will lack the strength needed to facilitate
changes in society. Lukewarm youngsters like Miss Sangma are a good
example of such self-restricting behaviour.
So, I wonder where the women activists have gone since February
2009. Lauded in the West as a big step forward, the President Ms.
Patil, is not an example of a modern woman. India clearly is not ready
for women in leadership positions to challenge old habits of men head-
on. Maybe the soon-to-be-founded Green Party of India will change
that? In Germany, it was the Green Party that managed to empower
women and got them important ministerial positions long before the
Conservative Party was even dreaming about it.
The debate on the Womens Reservation Bill now rages around how
many of such seats should be reserved for scheduled tribes etc. Some
are suggesting that more seats should be made available to provide
for the female seats. All these arguments lead away from the topic:
Indian women need a larger representation and a say in the decision-
making process. They need to be educated and understand themselves
as independent female members of society, not an extension of some
household or other social group.
I remember a friend of mine, a single mom from Mumbai, cursing
loudly while driving past a Manu temple that for her embodied all that
was wrong with Indian society. Left alone by her husband, living on
the fringe of society (even though were talking Middle Class here),
has provided her with an intense resentment against any kind of
chauvinism. Thats the type of strength needed to uproot deep-seated
prejudices in men and women and create a society of real equal
possibilities. Its a long way, but the debate on the Womens
Reservation Bill should be reclaimed by the people whom it is all
about: women.
Martin Lehmann-Waldau is a foreign journalist working on womens
issues across Asia.

11.Women Reservation Bill: Look beyond the
narrow prism

The Women Reservation Bill, recently tabled in the Parliament, was
opposed by many. However, they must remember that every Bill has a


scope of amendment and no one is averse to positive suggestions, but
stalling it is wrong and should be condemned.

IN THIS session of Parliament if something keeps our Member of
Parliament (MP) shouting, along with increasing inflation, it is the
Women Reservation Bill. Those who are opposed to this Bill for their
own manufactured logic are crying foul on the introduction of the Bill in
the Upper House. A few are selling the logic of million discrepancies in
the Bill. These sellers are none other than self-styled socialist groups
of this nation, who never hesitated in dealing with Saharas and
Ambanis of the world, despite carrying the flag of socialism. Hope that
there are few buyers of their logic and the progressive gentry of this
nation is more than happy that finally the Bill has been tabled.
What will happen to it is a matter yet to be decided. Keeping the
present opposition, nobody can predict the outcome but still
congratulations to all those who bravely defended the Bill inside the
Upper House of the Parliament, and all the best for the future where
more hurdles to stop the Bill are expected. Citing the argument of
inconsistency for differing on the Bill and call for a debate is one thing,
but rejecting it is not acceptable. Those who are opposed to the
Womens Reservation Bill must understand that condition of women in
this nation by no scale is satisfactory.
Government needs applause for its painstaking effort in bringing the
Bill on the table, but there are some critical issues, which require
efficient handling on the part of the government and by the womens
movement of our nation. If we just take the Gender Development
Index of the World, the position of India is reprehensible. United
Nations Development Programme prepares this Gender Development
Index. In last five years, that is from year 2000 to 2005, position of
India dipped from 105 to 113. The sex ratio in India is the nastiest in
South Asia and comes to worst from bad in the Census report of 1901
to 2001. As per the Census of 1901, the sex ratio in India was 972
women to 1,000 men, which in 2001 Census came down to 933
women, per 1000 men. The girl child is looked upon as a burden by
our society and people apply all possible methods to stop the birth of a
girl child. The girl child is slaughtered mercilessly in the mothers
womb and according to reports, around 50 million women are missing
because of female foeticide in India. Apart from this, women are also
subject to mental and physical torture for giving birth to a girl child.
In Indian society, women are considered as personal possession and
are viewed as the honour of family and society. This patriarchal
mindset restricts freedom of women and pressurises them to act


according to the set paradigm of the society, with no role of
intervention in decision-making. In majority of cases, from the level of
education to the choice of a life partner, voice of family prevails,
leaving lesser scope for individual preference. In addition, after the
marriage, women face oppression, but she bears it for the shake of her
family, the biggest institution of our society. Those who resist rarely
finds a voice of support in both sides of their family. Inside the locked
doors of family prestige, many crimes against women are a regular
feature, but majority of them go unreported. If we believe the reports
then the majority of women are sexually harassed by people they are
well acquainted with.
In numerous cases culprits are close relatives and family friends but
women keep mum for the sake of honour and to avoid the social
stigma, which is a product of this patriarchal society. A girl in a family
is like an added burden as to look after her and to ensure that all
traditional criteria remains intact is difficult. Sometime if the girl tries
to break this chain then in majority of cases, the same chain becomes
a death tag for her. From caste panchayats to religious leaders, they
only pronounce death sentence for such girls.
Dowry is another such social evil, which has crippled our society since
long and with the passage of time demand for dowry has increased.
Law prohibiting dowry is in place from 1961, but this law is broken in
the presence of leaders to judges in several marriage ceremonies.
Bluff with the anti-dowry law is easy by using different terminologies
like gift, offering, part of tradition, etc. According to the National Crime
Record Bureau (NCRB), one dowry death is reported in every 77
minutes. Domestic violence has direct correlation with dowry in our
society. The increasing demand of dowry, particularly in the middle
class has made the life of women more vulnerable. Parents in the fear
of giving dowry do not want a girl child.
These are some of the most visible aliments and there are other deep-
rooted problems, which need immediate attention. Through womens
reservation in the Parliament at least, would ensured that in important
decisions of the nation this deprived gender will have a vital say. Many
of those, who are opposed to womens reservations in Parliament,
consider Mahatama Jyoti Rao Phule as their ideal. Mahatama Phule,
the father of social reforms in India considered women equally
defenseless, along with other deprived sections of the society. Phule
even started a school for women in which anyone could come. The
visionary Phule was well aware of the fact that irrespective of caste,
women are subject to oppression in the society. Taking the present
Womens Reservation Bill on the path advocated by Phule, we must
support it unequivocally.


There are many battles where more strong fight is required and weve
not been able to make any breakthrough till date. Women Reservation
Bill is a step in right direction and those opposed to it for whatever
reasons are only defending the age-old patriarchal mindset. The scope
for debate will always exist and contentious issues must be resolved
amicably, but taking a position per say against womens reservation is
only helping those who want to retain patriarchal values by any
means. Rome was not built in a day and much needs to be done.
Every Bill has a scope of amendment and no one is averse to positive
suggestions, but stalling it is wrong and should be condemned.
Keeping the poor record of our nation in World Gender Index, let us
hope that sense will prevail in some of our leaders and more efforts to
ameliorate the status of women would be taken, rather than
maintaining the status quo.




12.Genetically-modified foods (GM foods)

Genetically-modified foods (GM foods) have made a big splash in the
news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest
groups have been actively protesting against GM foods for months,
and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-
modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars
1, 2
have brought
the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public
consciousness in the U.S. In response to the upswelling of public
concern, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held three open
meetings in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California to
solicit public opinions and begin the process of establishing a new
regulatory procedure for government approval of GM foods
3
. I
attended the FDA meeting held in November 1999 in Washington,
D.C., and here I will attempt to summarize the issues involved and
explain the U.S. government's present role in regulating GM food.
What are genetically-modified foods?
The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most
commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal
consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These
plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits
such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional
content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been
undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding


methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate.
Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the
exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example,
plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance
and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-
modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes
be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant
organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use
of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is
a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are
lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred
into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against
insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative
overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods,
visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto).
What are some of the advantages of GM foods?
The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to
double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this
booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to
come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:
Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering,
resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in
developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical
pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been
treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-
off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and
fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the
environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate
the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a
crop to market
4, 5
.
Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to
remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often
spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy
weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so
that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment.
Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful
herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the
amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a
strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their
herbicide product Roundup
6
. A farmer grows these soybeans which
then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple
applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of
agricultural waste run-off
7
.


Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that
cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with
genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases
8, 9
.
Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An
antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants
such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are
able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified
seedlings
10
. (Note: I have not been able to find any journal articles or
patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I
have seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that
nothing on this application has yet been published or patented.)
Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows
and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production,
farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for
plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of
drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to
grow crops in formerly inhospitable places
11, 12
.
Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where
impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main
staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts
of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be
genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals,
nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to
vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries.
Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for
Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an
unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)
13
. Since this rice
was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation
14
, a non-profit organization,
the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world
country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice
that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded
the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps
because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this
nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all
15
.
Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce
and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available
in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible
vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes
16, 17
. These vaccines will be much
easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable
vaccines.
Phytoremediation Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and
groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the
world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to
clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil
18
.
How prevalent are GM crops?
What plants are involved?


According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of
the federal requirements for commercialization
(http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/biocon). Some examples of these
plants include tomatoes and cantalopes that have modified ripening
characteristics, soybeans and sugarbeets that are resistant to
herbicides, and corn and cotton plants with increased resistance to
insect pests. Not all these products are available in supermarkets yet;
however, the prevalence of GM foods in U.S. grocery stores is more
widespread than is commonly thought. While there are very, very few
genetically-modified whole fruits and vegetables available on produce
stands, highly processed foods, such as vegetable oils or breakfast
cereals, most likely contain some tiny percentage of genetically-
modified ingredients because the raw ingredients have been pooled
into one processing stream from many different sources. Also, the
ubiquity of soybean derivatives as food additives in the modern
American diet virtually ensures that all U.S. consumers have been
exposed to GM food products.
Thirteen countries grew genetically-engineered crops commercially in
2000, and of these, the U.S. produced the majority. In 2000, 68% of
all GM crops were grown by U.S. farmers. In comparison, Argentina,
Canada and China produced only 23%, 7% and 1%, respectively.
Other countries that grew commercial GM crops in 2000 are Australia,
Bulgaria, France, Germany, Mexico, Romania, South Africa, Spain, and
Uruguay.
Soybeans and corn are the top two most widely grown crops (82% of
all GM crops harvested in 2000), with cotton, rapeseed (or canola) and
potatoes trailing behind. 74% of these GM crops were modified for
herbicide tolerance, 19% were modified for insect pest resistance, and
7% were modified for both herbicide tolerance and pest tolerance.
Globally, acreage of GM crops has increased 25-fold in just 5 years,
from approximately 4.3 million acres in 1996 to 109 million acres in
2000 - almost twice the area of the United Kingdom. Approximately 99
million acres were devoted to GM crops in the U.S. and Argentina
alone.
In the U.S., approximately 54% of all soybeans cultivated in 2000
were genetically-modified, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996.
In 2000, genetically-modified cotton varieties accounted for 61% of
the total cotton crop, up from 42% in 1998, and 15% in 1996. GM
corn and also experienced a similar but less dramatic increase. Corn
production increased to 25% of all corn grown in 2000, about the
same as 1998 (26%), but up from 1.5% in 1996. As anticipated,
pesticide and herbicide use on these GM varieties was slashed and, for
the most part, yields were increased .
What are some of the criticisms against GM foods?


Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups,
professional associations and other scientists and government officials
have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness
for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the
government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It
seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the
Vatican
19
and the Prince of Wales
20
have expressed their opinions.
Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories:
environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns.
Environmental hazards
Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study
was published in Nature
21
showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused
high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch
caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if
pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in
neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish.
Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field
conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint.
Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae
indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only
kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This
study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups,
and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study
may have been flawed
22, 23
. This topic is the subject of acrimonious
debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data
vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these
studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will
need to be evaluated further.
Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of
mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT,
many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t.
or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their
own pesticides.
Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop
plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed,
resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the
crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide
tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-
modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of
interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed
by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits
against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims
that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an
unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers
claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone


else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is
needed to resolve this issue.
There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned
above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to
ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from
GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not
produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not
contain the introduced gene
24, 25, 26
. Cross-pollination would not occur,
and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen
from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive.
Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM
crops
27, 28, 29
. For example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround
a field of B.t. GM corn, and the non-GM corn would not be harvested.
Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the non-GM corn,
and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and
would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds
and other crops would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would
not travel beyond the buffer zone. Estimates of the necessary width of
buffer zones range from 6 meters to 30 meters or more
30
. This
planting method may not be feasible if too much acreage is required
for the buffer zones.
Human health risks
Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed
life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a
possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new
allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A
proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was
abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic
reactions
31
. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid
the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies. Labeling of
GM foods and food products will acquire new importance, which I shall
discuss later.
Unknown effects on human health There is a growing concern that
introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected
and negative impact on human health. A recent article published in
Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in
rats
32, 33
. This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in
the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified
potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly
data, is flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny
34
. Moreover,
the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lectin, a
substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created
this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the
methodology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or
animal consumption.


On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists
believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health.

Economic concerns
Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of
course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on
their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies
and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big
concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that
patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high
that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford
seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and
the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies
and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and
offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations.
Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the
farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains
when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat
possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM
plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and
would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would
need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be
financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot
afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of
their harvest to plant in the next growing season. In an open letter to
the public, Monsanto has pledged to abandon all research using this
suicide gene technology
35
.
How are GM foods regulated and what is the government's role
in this process?
Governments around the world are hard at work to establish a
regulatory process to monitor the effects of and approve new varieties
of GM plants. Yet depending on the political, social and economic
climate within a region or country, different governments are
responding in different ways.
In Japan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has announced that
health testing of GM foods will be mandatory as of April 2001
36, 37
.
Currently, testing of GM foods is voluntary. Japanese supermarkets are
offering both GM foods and unmodified foods, and customers are
beginning to show a strong preference for unmodified fruits and
vegetables.
India's government has not yet announced a policy on GM foods
because no GM crops are grown in India and no products are


commercially available in supermarkets yet
38
. India is, however, very
supportive of transgenic plant research. It is highly likely that India
will decide that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the risks because
Indian agriculture will need to adopt drastic new measures to
counteract the country's endemic poverty and feed its exploding
population.
Some states in Brazil have banned GM crops entirely, and the Brazilian
Institute for the Defense of Consumers, in collaboration with
Greenpeace, has filed suit to prevent the importation of GM crops
39,
.
Brazilian farmers, however, have resorted to smuggling GM soybean
seeds into the country because they fear economic harm if they are
unable to compete in the global marketplace with other grain-
exporting countries.
In Europe, anti-GM food protestors have been especially active. In the
last few years Europe has experienced two major foods scares: bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in Great Britain and
dioxin-tainted foods originating from Belgium. These food scares have
undermined consumer confidence about the European food supply, and
citizens are disinclined to trust government information about GM
foods. In response to the public outcry, Europe now requires
mandatory food labeling of GM foods in stores, and the European
Commission (EC) has established a 1% threshold for contamination of
unmodified foods with GM food products
40
.
In the United States, the regulatory process is confused because there
are three different government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM
foods. To put it very simply, the EPA evaluates GM plants for
environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to
grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. The EPA
is responsible for regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins
that may cause harm to the environment. GM crops such as B.t.
pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified
for their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA. The USDA
is responsible for GM crops that do not fall under the umbrella of the
EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown
for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human
consumption. The FDA historically has been concerned with
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food products and additives, not whole
foods. Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold
at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole
food, but a box of cornflakes is regulated because it is a food product.
The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to
unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA
regulation.
The EPA conducts risk assessment studies on pesticides that could
potentially cause harm to human health and the environment, and


establishes tolerance and residue levels for pesticides. There are strict
limits on the amount of pesticides that may be applied to crops during
growth and production, as well as the amount that remains in the food
after processing. Growers using pesticides must have a license for
each pesticide and must follow the directions on the label to accord
with the EPA's safety standards. Government inspectors may
periodically visit farms and conduct investigations to ensure
compliance. Violation of government regulations may result in steep
fines, loss of license and even jail sentences.
As an example the EPA regulatory approach, consider B.t. corn. The
EPA has not established limits on residue levels in B.t corn because the
B.t. in the corn is not sprayed as a chemical pesticide but is a gene
that is integrated into the genetic material of the corn itself. Growers
must have a license from the EPA for B.t corn, and the EPA has issued
a letter for the 2000 growing season requiring farmers to plant 20%
unmodified corn, and up to 50% unmodified corn in regions where
cotton is also cultivated
41
. This planting strategy may help prevent
insects from developing resistance to the B.t. pesticides as well as
provide a refuge for non-target insects such as Monarch butterflies.
The USDA has many internal divisions that share responsibility for
assessing GM foods. Among these divisions are APHIS, the Animal
Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and
issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service
which performs in-house GM food research, and the Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA
risk assessment program. The USDA is concerned with potential
hazards of the plant itself. Does it harbor insect pests? Is it a noxious
weed? Will it cause harm to indigenous species if it escapes from
farmer's fields? The USDA has the power to impose quarantines on
problem regions to prevent movement of suspected plants, restrict
import or export of suspected plants, and can even destroy plants
cultivated in violation of USDA regulations. Many GM plants do not
require USDA permits from APHIS. A GM plant does not require a
permit if it meets these 6 criteria: 1) the plant is not a noxious weed;
2) the genetic material introduced into the GM plant is stably
integrated into the plant's own genome; 3) the function of the
introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease; 4) the GM
plant is not toxic to non-target organisms; 5) the introduced gene will
not cause the creation of new plant viruses; and 6) the GM plant
cannot contain genetic material from animal or human pathogens .The
current FDA policy was developed in 1992 (Federal Register Docket
No. 92N-0139) and states that agri-biotech companies may voluntarily
ask the FDA for a consultation. Companies working to create new GM
foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to
follow the FDA's recommendations after the consultation. Consumer
interest groups wish this process to be mandatory, so that all GM food


products, whole foods or otherwise, must be approved by the FDA
before being released for commercialization. The FDA counters that
the agency currently does not have the time, money, or resources to
carry out exhaustive health and safety studies of every proposed GM
food product. Moreover, the FDA policy as it exists today does not
allow for this type of intervention.
How are GM foods labeled?
Labeling of GM foods and food products is also a contentious issue. On
the whole, agribusiness industries believe that labeling should be
voluntary and influenced by the demands of the free market. If
consumers show preference for labeled foods over non-labeled foods,
then industry will have the incentive to regulate itself or risk alienating
the customer. Consumer interest groups, on the other hand, are
demanding mandatory labeling. People have the right to know what
they are eating, argue the interest groups, and historically industry
has proven itself to be unreliable at self-compliance with existing
safety regulations. The FDA's current position on food labeling is
governed by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which is only concerned
with food additives, not whole foods or food products that are
considered "GRAS" - generally recognized as safe. The FDA contends
that GM foods are substantially equivalent to non-GM foods, and
therefore not subject to more stringent labeling. If all GM foods and
food products are to be labeled, Congress must enact sweeping
changes in the existing food labeling policy.
There are many questions that must be answered if labeling of GM
foods becomes mandatory. First, are consumers willing to absorb the
cost of such an initiative? If the food production industry is required to
label GM foods, factories will need to construct two separate
processing streams and monitor the production lines accordingly.
Farmers must be able to keep GM crops and non-GM crops from
mixing during planting, harvesting and shipping. It is almost assured
that industry will pass along these additional costs to consumers in the
form of higher prices.
Secondly, what are the acceptable limits of GM contamination in non-
GM products? The EC has determined that 1% is an acceptable limit of
cross-contamination, yet many consumer interest groups argue that
only 0% is acceptable. Some companies such as Gerber baby foods
42

and Frito-Lay
43
have pledged to avoid use of GM foods in any of their
products. But who is going to monitor these companies for compliance
and what is the penalty if they fail? Once again, the FDA does not have
the resources to carry out testing to ensure compliance.
What is the level of detectability of GM food cross-contamination?
Scientists agree that current technology is unable to detect minute
quantities of contamination, so ensuring 0% contamination using


existing methodologies is not guaranteed. Yet researchers disagree on
what level of contamination really is detectable, especially in highly
processed food products such as vegetable oils or breakfast cereals
where the vegetables used to make these products have been pooled
from many different sources. A 1% threshold may already be below
current levels of detectability.
Finally, who is to be responsible for educating the public about GM
food labels and how costly will that education be? Food labels must be
designed to clearly convey accurate information about the product in
simple language that everyone can understand. This may be the
greatest challenge faced be a new food labeling policy: how to educate
and inform the public without damaging the public trust and causing
alarm or fear of GM food products.
In January 2000, an international trade agreement for labeling GM
foods was established
44, 45
. More than 130 countries, including the US,
the world's largest producer of GM foods, signed the agreement. The
policy states that exporters must be required to label all GM foods and
that importing countries have the right to judge for themselves the
potential risks and reject GM foods, if they so choose. This new
agreement may spur the U.S. government to resolve the domestic
food labeling dilemma more rapidly.
Conclusion
Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the
world's hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and
preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance
upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet there are many
challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety
testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling. Many people
feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and
that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous
potential benefits. However, we must proceed with caution to avoid
causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a
result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology.

Bt Brinjal-indias first genetically modified food
crop
India's biotechnology regulator Genetic Engineering Appraisal
Committee (GEAC) on Wednesday gave thumbs up Bt brinjal in the
backdrop of the controversy surrounding GM crops.

GEAC assessed the recommendations of a special committee that had
accumulated data for over nine years to study the bio-safety of Bt


brinjal.

Bt brinjal is the first modified genetically modified vegetable that has
been introduced to Indians.

The experts, however, have raised concern over the environmental
implications due to GM crops.

GM crops are those in which genetic material (DNA) is altered for some
perceived advantage either to the producer or the consumer.

Bt cotton was the first transgenic crop to be introduced in the country
in 2002. Since then there has been a lot of controversy surrounding it
with experts debating on its performance and impact on the
environment and health of cattle.

India, as a party to the Convention on Biodiversity and having ratified
the Cartagena Protocol (CP), is committed to the safe handling of
living modified organisms (LMOs) or genetically modified organisms
(GMOs).

The Protocol provides a broad framework on biosafety especially
focusing on trans-boundary movements of GMOs and also covers
seeds that are meant for intentional release into the environment, as
well as those GMOs that are intended for food, feed or used in food
processing.