This is a blog post from
The recent agitation in Kadiramangalam, Thanjavur , was in part due to a fear that oil extraction has depleted groundwater, though drought likely played a significant part in the falling groundwater levels. Not too far back, however, when the Cauvery basin was found to contain oil and gas resources, the news was met with joy in Tamil Nadu. A widely-held belief was that the availability of these resources meant wealth. There was little opposition to their drilling and extraction. But Kadiramangalam is only the latest in a series of agitations that farmers have launched in the delta against these projects.
Tamil Nadu has seen several agitations in the recent past triggered by people’s fears over projects involving the application of science and technology. The fear is that the projects not only harm the environment but also affect livelihoods and destroy native culture and resources. Science and technology have come under critical public scrutiny in the State.
The agitation against the neutrino project was largely fueled by the fact that the project involved cutting-edge science that was beyond the grasp of most people barring a handful of scientists. Fact mixed with fiction and apprehension and fears based on information —authentic and half-baked — in the public domain including the Internet played a key role in these agitations.
Noting the divergence between the antagonists and the protagonists of such projects, some public-spirited citizens have sought to bring the two sides together on a common platform so they could communicate and understand each other better. On July 2, there was a debate about Genetically Modified crops in which scientists and researchers clashed with opponents of GM.
Nearly a year ago, the same venue, Kavikko Arangam, saw activists clashing with scientists over the neutrino project that was a hot button issue at that time. That debate was a packed Sunday-evening standing-room-only event. Among the speakers were D. Indumathi, a scientist at the Institute of Mathematical Science in Chennai who was involved in the project, T.V. Venkateswaran, a scientist with Vigyan Prasar, Department of Science and Technology, as well as R. Sundarrajan of Poovulagin Nanbargal that had moved the NGT against the project.
The audience, which had gathered largely as a result of word-of-mouth and social media, seemed to lean toward the side of the activists. The proponents tried to put their point across persuasively but often came across as talking down to the audience as though they knew the real facts whereas the opponents didn’t. During the debate, many of the objections that activists came up with seemed half-baked to scientists but the activists took the line that they were going to throw everything at the defenders of the project and the onus of proof was on the scientists.
That the project came under the department of atomic energy was enough to set alarm bells ringing about radiation and the site being used for nuclear-waste disposal. The scientists were at pains to explain that many basic science projects inevitably came under the DAE in India.
Antagonists used rhetoric and poetry to insist that farmers have been among the biggest innovators in agriculture though they are thought to have little scientific knowledge.
The State government’s goof-up of categorising the neutrino project as a nuclear project was picked upon. The scientists were hearing that the project would involve the consumption of crores of litres of water — and that was not the reality. “We saw how the rhetoric was being constructed. What kind of thought process was taking hold. We saw genuine concerns too such as whether there will be any land acquisition, storing of nuclear waste at the site,” said T. V. Venkateswaran recently.
Activist Sundarrajan said the debate helped him also to fully understand the other side, although at the end of it he didn't seem to trust the scientists any more than he did before. “The debate worsened my fear that the scientists were not fully transparent. The project report did say that in the second phase of the project research would be done on factory neutrinos but at the debate they denied it,” said Sundarrajan, whose organisation later obtained a stay from the NGT saying the agency that had done the environmental assessment for the project did not have the right credentials to conduct such assessments.
Gnani Sankaran, political analyst and playwright who served as the moderator, said it was the first time the sides came on the same platform. “I wanted to create an environment where both could talk. Even that has become rare. Everyone has their own space, and they don't get out of that space," he said.
Before the GM debate, an online poll event conducted by Thozhan, the NGO that organised the event, indicated that an overwhelming percentage of social media enthusiasts were against GM. Only 18 said yes, says Va Radhakrishnan, coordinator of the NGO. Thozhan, which had in the past focussed on awareness campaigns on traffic awareness, organ-donation and tree plantation, organised the event to provide a public platform for both parties on the GM debate to speak to each other.
Science/Choice/Demand/Supply shall determine GM Crop NOT public debate.Therefore trials r essential @PrakashJavdekar
— Surendra Politician (@SurendraFDR) May 27, 2016
Proponents said scientists and scientific institutions should be trusted with testing, evaluation and formulation of protocols for its use. Rajalakshmi Swaminathan, formerly with M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, insisted on establishing credible and autonomous institutions with scientists heading them to validate and assess GM crops. She said natural cross-selection and producing hybrids takes at least 20 years and is not a precise process, whereas GM technology quickens that process and is precise. “The black gram variety used widely in the State is a product of irradiation, but we have accepted it. Why can’t we accept GM after it clears biosafety assessment?” she asked.
Antagonists used rhetoric and poetry to insist that farmers have been among the biggest innovators in agriculture though they are thought to have little scientific knowledge. They took broad swipes against the Green Revolution and, in general, warned against meddling too much with nature since the impact cannot be predicted. Sundar Rajan, a lawyer and environment activist, attacked the idea that science should be spoken only by those who have done PhDs. “GM is not an innocent choice that is purely science-driven. The all pervading influence of multinational corporations and infringement of States’ rights over agriculture should be considered too,” he said.
Mr. Mahesh Kumar, speaking for GM, noted that today people are suspicious of the government and institutions including those devoted to science. Ms Swaminathan, however, has a counter view: “We are not an alien species with horns. We are also keen to help farmers who need to earn their livelihood and keep food security as the goal,” said Ms. Swaminathan.
The debate did not really address specifics, as Rajalakshmi noted later. For instance, the key fear in GM Mustard is that it promotes herbicide use, thus creating a market for some vendors, without addressing fears of herbicide use on health. For the activists, it was enough that the companies promoting GM in the past made millions out of selling DDT .
At the end of the debate, it did appear that some of the fence-sitters were persuaded to accept GM. Thozhan reported that the online poll after the debate showed nearly 200 people against the technology but those who were for GM had crossed 100.
Science can be debated, affirms Gnani. “Why a project should or should not come is a matter of debate,” he adds.
While the debate over GM has played out in India in terms of benefits vs. cost to the people and the nation, the neutrino project started with too many handicaps in the court of public opinion. For the locals of West Bodi Hills in Theni, there was nothing in the project for them. Once that got established in their minds, talk of massive magnets, tunneling into the hills and so on seemed like an unnecessary and dangerous intrusion into their life. In that sense, the stalled neutrino project in Theni is a failure in science communication. It may well be time for policymakers and initiators of projects to consider public opinion as a factor to be dealt with — along with availability of land, water, resources and funding.
