Bacillus thuringiensis Cotton in India: Debates Surrounding Agricultural Biotechnology

  • Madhulika Kumari
  • Sambit Mallick


This chapter examines the debates surrounding transgenic technology in agriculture through the response of civil society organizations (CSOs) to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton in India. The study shows that the views of CSOs on Bt cotton differ, and there is a need to understand the conflicting interests and ideologies of CSOs. The increasing corporatisation of inputs, as exemplified by the Monsanto-driven Bt crops, exacerbates this squeeze. In this context, this study attempts to understand the responses of CSOs to genetically modified crops, specifically Bt cotton in India, concentrating on the larger implications for the farming community and debates surrounding agricultural biotechnology in India.


Civil Society Genetically Modify Genetically Modify Crop Civil Society Organization Genetically Modify Food 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cahoon RS (2007) Licensing agreements in agricultural biotechnology. In: Anatole KrAttiger RM (ed) In intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices. MIHR/PIPRA, Oxford, pp 1009–1016Google Scholar
  2. Chakrabarty K (2011) Agricultural productivity and credit- issues and way forward. Reserve Bank of India. Reserve Bank of India, Pune, India, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  3. Dogra B (2012) Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering, The Hindu, October 21Google Scholar
  4. Dynes M (2002) Africa torn between GM aid and starvation. London Times. Accessed 21 June 2013
  5. Falkner R (2006) The international politics of genetically modified food: diplomacy, trade and law. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fink G (2010) Stress of war, conflict and disaster. Academic, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. Gill S (1994) Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Committee on Agriculture. (2012) Cultivation of genetically modified crops – prospects and effects. Lok Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  9. Gramsci A (1992) Prison notebooks. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Kloppenburg JR Jr (2004) First the seed: the political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492–2000. University of Wisconsin Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Krishnakumar A (2003) What is Bt cotton, Frontline, India, 6 JuneGoogle Scholar
  12. Lalitha N (2004) Diffusion of agricultural biotechnology and intellectual property Rights: emerging issues in India. Ecol Econ 49(2):187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leach MI (2007) Science and citizens: globalisation and the challenge of engagement. Orient Longman, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  14. Mallick S, Haribabu E, Reddy BB (2011) Industrialization of seed production: implications for agriculture in India. Perspect Glob Dev Technol 10(3–4):441–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Menon P (2001) A farm crisis and suicides, Frontline, India, 7 AprilGoogle Scholar
  16. Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Pinstrup-Andersen P, Cohen Marc J (2000) Modern biotechnology for food and agriculture: risks and opportunities for the poor. In: Agricultural biotechnology and the poor: an international conference on biotechnology, pp 159–169Google Scholar
  18. Qaim M (2001) Transgenic crops and developing countries. Econ Pol Wkly 36(32):3064–3070Google Scholar
  19. Raghuram N (2002) India joins the GM club. Trends Plant Sci 7(7):322–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramani SV (2008) After the green revolution, Bt. cotton in India: blessing or regulatory headache? Ecole Polytechnique, Working paper, F-91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  21. Ramanna A (2005) Bt. cotton and India’s policy on IPRs. Asian Biotechnol Dev Rev 7(2):43–51Google Scholar
  22. Saha A (2001) Risk in HYV and traditional rice cultivation: an enquiry in West Bengal agriculture. Indian J Agric Econ 56:57–88Google Scholar
  23. Sahai S (2002) A mixed bag. Frontline, India, 7 JuneGoogle Scholar
  24. Sahai S (2012a) Monsanto pays for its sins. Accessed 13 Aug 2012
  25. Sahai S (2012b) The failure of Monsanto’s Bt cotton. Accessed 21 July 2012
  26. Sahai S (2012c) What should be the strategy for Bt technology. Accessed 12 Jan 2012
  27. Sahai S, Rehman S (2004) Bt-cotton, 2003–2004: fields swamped with illegal variants. Econ Pol Wkly 39(26):2673–2674Google Scholar
  28. Scoones I (2005) Science, agriculture and the politics of policy: the case of biotechnology in India. Orient Longman Private Limited, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  29. Shiva V (1993) The violence of the Green Revolution: agriculture, ecology and politics. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Shiva V (2001) Yoked to death: globalisation and the corporate control of agriculture. Navdanya, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  31. Shiva V (2002) Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply. Navdanya, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  32. Shiva V (2004) The future of food: countering globalization and recolonisation of Indian agriculture. Futures 36:715–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shiva V (2006) Seed dictatorship and food fascism. Navdanya, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  34. Shiva V (2008) Seed monopolies, genetic engineering and farmers suicides. Navdanya, pp 1–4. Accessed 28 July 2013
  35. Shiva V (2009) No GM crops and food: a handbook for activists. Navdanya, New DelhiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of TechnologyGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations