To,

The Prime Minister of India
Government of India
New Delhi

                                                                                                                   October 31, 2006 

Official Address: PMO, Room No. 152, South Block, New Delhi- 110001. 23016857 (fax) 

Subject: Concerns with Second Green Revolution in Rice and Points Reiterated at the Second International Rice Congress  

Shri Manmohan Singh ji, 

It was encouraging to know through newspaper reports that in your speech at the Second International Rice Congress you have expressed caution in the use of biotechnology in rice cultivation, especially with regards to “golden rice” and “iron rich' rice. This is of concern to the range of social, economic and ethical questions associated with the inroads of biotechnology in to our traditional agriculture systems.  

However, at the same time we are deeply concerned that you have called for a Second Green Revolution in Rice with the focus on improving the economics of rice cultivation and use of resources. In your speech you have also been reported to have reiterated that rice cultivation should be improved and the crop yield should be increased per unit of water, and that scientists need to develop new varieties which are drought or salinity resistant. 

Sir, we would like to bring to your attention that traditionally farmers have been using a large range of varieties on their farms, which have all these properties. It was the Green Revolution that replaced many of the productive, resistant, and diverse varieties with a few hybrid ones, through large-scale monoculture, and through state subsidies for all kinds of external inputs rather than support for what already existed traditionally. Thankfully, till date many farmers are using a range of such varieties on their farms. Our agriculture programmes and policies need to encourage these, rather than promote their disregard through a second technocratic, top-down green revolution.  

We would like to bring your attention to few rice varieties, which are already in use and are meeting or have the potential to meet the food security needs of farming families and of society as a whole, especially if they are encouraged with appropriate means. . Further, other than looking at only economics of the cultivation, these varieties are linked with the people's cultures and traditional knowledge.  

• KUMERU is a drought resistant rice variety cultivated in the hilly areas of Karnataka during rainy season.
• CHARE is a drought resistant variety grown in Karnataka, which gives long straw that can be used as cattle feed or put to some other alternative use.
• KAYAME is a traditionally grown rice variety of Karnataka, which is resistant to both drought and alkalinity, and it gives tasty boiled rice.
• MORADDA is a red, tasty, big size rice variety that is resistant to both drought and alkalinity. It grows faster and is cultivated during three seasons in Karnataka.
• KALAME is an alkalinity hardy variety grown in coastal areas and it has medicinal properties.
• JHOLAGA is a salinity resistant rice variety, which is traditionally grown in coastal regions of Karnataka. This also gives long straw.
• BORO rice variety is drought hardy and is cultivated in dry areas of Bihar.
• Orkaima, Pokkali and Kuttadan are indigenously grown, salt- resistant paddy varieties of Kerala.
• A variety called HETADA VEE is grown in Sri Lanka in the dry season. It matures earlier than the commonly used varieties and gives a good yield.

These are just a few examples, we are sure there are many such varieties grown by the local farmers not only in India but also other countries of South Asia. 

Therefore, to really strike a balance between technology and ecology (as you had also suggested in your speech), we first need to harness the resources, varieties and knowledge that we already have instead of heading straight to modern biotechnology.  

As Dr. Robert S. Zeigler said, to achieve UN’s Millenium Development Goals on poverty, we must focus on the livelihoods of poor rice farmers and consumers.  To facilitate this, research in the field of agriculture should be more farmer- led and farmer- oriented so the farmers can come into the core and share their knowledge.  Their livelihoods are dependent on their traditional rice varieties and the farming practices. These region specific varieties have been developed by them over generations and have stood the test of time. Whereas, the Genetically modified varieties (whether of rice or any other crop) have been replacing labour with mechanization and snatching people off their livelihoods. Hence giving traditional varieties a trial before spreading the generalized, laboratory-developed varieties as monocultures would be worthwhile. 

The Rice Congress also discussed that with the growing population of the South Asian region and global warming induced climate changes, the need to develop high- yielding and low input- demanding rice varieties further intensifies. The High yielding varieties of the Green Revolution destroyed traditional farming practices and seeds in many parts of the country, making people (especially small farmers) more vulnerable to changes in climate, market conditions and governmental policies. We believe that the second green revolution that is being encouraged by you will only intensify this detrimental trend, unless it can be re-oriented to make it truly small farmer driven, ecologically sensitive, and building on available biodiversity and traditional knowledge. 

We urge you to look at agriculture in its true livelihood and cultural sense, and not as agribusiness which is being promoted today. We are sure to find living solutions on our own farms only if we stop relying on “external” inputs of knowledge and technology. 

We look forward to your response.

1. Afsar H. Jafri, Reseach Associate, Mumbai
2. Akshay Jasrotia, Member, Zilla Parishad, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh
3. Ardhendu Chattterjee, Development, Research, Communication & Services Centre, West Bengal
4. Arun Mani Dixit, Gujrat Institute of Desert Ecology, Bhuj, Kuch, Gujrat
5. Ashish Kothari/ Meenakshi kapoor, Kalpavriksh, Pune/ Delhi
6. Ashok Kumar Shetty, Krishikara Vedike-Karnataka, Karnataka
7. Dhritiman Chaterji, concerned citizen
8. Dilip Gode, Vidarbha Nature Conservation Society, Maharashtra
9. G.Srinivas, Activist, Samata, Visakhapatnam
10. G. V.Ramanjaneyulu, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Secundrabad
11. Jacob Nellithanam, Centre for Indigenous Farming Systems, Bhopal/Richaria Campaign, Chattisgarh
12. Kailash Jani, Ganjam zila Adivasi Mancha,  Ganjam, Orissa
13. K.Allaya, Orissa Traditional Fishworkers’ Union, Ganjam, Orissa
14. K. Somanath Nayak, Nagarika Seva Trust, Karnataka
15. Kulbhushan Upmanyu/ Guman Singh/ Rahul Saxena, Navrachna, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh
16. Madhu Sarin, Concerned Citizen, Chandigarh
17. Mangaraj Panda, Orissa Marine Resources Conservation Consortium, Ganjam, Orissa
18. P. Hemavathi, Karavali Mahila Jagruthi Vedike, Karnataka
19. Prakash Bhandari, Lok Vigyan Kendra, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh
20. Premananda Kalmady, D.K. Parisarasakthara Okkoota, Karnataka
21. Rattan Chand, Himalay Bachao Samiti, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh
22. Sandeep Minhas, Village Ghuggar, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh
23. Shalini Bhutani, Concerned Citizen, Delhi
24. Sheelu Francis, Tamilnadu Women’s collective, Tamilnadu
25. Shiraz Wajih, Gorakhpur Environment Action Group,  Uttar Pradesh
26. S. Usha, Thanal, Kerala
27. Simanchal Nahak, Rushikulya Rayat Mahasabha, Ganjam, Orissa
28. Umendra Dutt, Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab
29. Vijay nandkishore jawandhia, Shetkari Sangathan, Maharashtra