Over the top

The multitude of other issues aside (such as, Do people really like brinjal/ aubergine/eggplant that much in the first place? Ok, the USD 2 billion annual sales in India alone notwithstanding) it was heartening to see the proudly temporary end to the debate over biotech (Bt) brinjal in India come about with such right-headed vacillation. “If you need long-term toxicity tests,” said much-pilloried pointman Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, “then you must do it, no matter how long it takes.” Seemingly simple enough, and Ramesh had more common-sense wisdom: “There is no [freaking] hurry. [Not one of you idiots can point to any] … overriding urgency or food-security argument for [releasing] Bt brinjal [– and you know it].” (Additions by the writer.)

This kind of slow, steady decision-making, with an eye firmly on the long term and the safety (in every sense of the word) of the populace, is exactly what how government needs to engage on highly complex issues such as those surrounding the use of biotechnology in food products. (Most importantly, the new variety of brinjal is aimed at making it less tasty for the bugs that routinely ravage Indian crops.) And although Ramesh has been roundly criticised since his 9 February announcement that New Delhi was overruling a panel that had dubbed Bt brinjal safe for human consumption, the fact of the matter is that his ministry’s reasoning should also have been (at least this writer hopes) taken as a subtle rap on the knuckles to some of the overly strident anti-biotech activism that has bubbled around brinjal and cotton in the past. Far from the idea that Ramesh is purportedly being ideological in his decision-making – rejecting biotech because it is a ‘Western’ import – the fact of the matter is that the minister is keeping the door wide open for a subsequent re-appraisal of the issue.

And while the anti-biotech activists’ warning against predatory corporations and their potential future cornering of India’s endlessly lucrative seed market are not only warranted but a critical element of future decision-making, they are not the sole criteria for that process. Indeed, the longstanding complaint that enough long-term testing simply has not been possible on biotech foodstuffs remains the single most important element in that discussion – and is precisely what Ramesh is now giving voice to. Should the minister’s “long-term toxicity tests” ultimately come back with a clean chit for Bt brinjal, or anything else, it will be interesting to see how the activist line changes. After all, human tinkering with nature, while potentially frightening, has also given the world such stable ‘inventions’ as the delicious apple, the beautiful tulip and, well, the whole of agriculture and its subsequent impact on human civilisation’s ability to relax and dream a bit.

Meanwhile, the most worrying of criticism of Ramesh’s announcement has come from the scientific community. Whether this is due to indignation that the findings of the scientific committee that gave the green light to Bt brinjal’s safety have now been semi-rejected, or whether this response can be explained by the circulating rumours of hidden interest, is unclear. Either way, however, the sanctity of scientific rigour is exactly what is being upheld by this decision: there is no scientist around who can honestly say that, in the decades since biotechnology has been used on foodstuffs, there has been adequate time to say, with acceptable scientific surety, that any biotech crop is safe for widespread human use and pervasive contact with the natural world. As such, any scientist that claims to be outraged by Ramesh’s even-keeled response – that’s you, Sajiv Anand, director of the All India Crop Biotechnology Association – is not being true to his or her scientific groundings.

Of course, governments around the world are regularly denounced for not having the backbone to make difficult decisions, and hence pushing them down the road for another government to deal with. Thus, it will be similarly important to make sure that this Ramesh-style vacillation is indeed only temporary. Eventually, the time may well come that the introduction of certain biotech foods will be generally agreed-upon as a positive move, and perhaps will be hailed as a true – rather than hoped-for – victory of humankind. But until then, leave the brinjal, a native plant to the Subcontinent, along with its dozens of smallish, uniquely formed, bug-ridden, rather tasteless varieties, alone.

– Carey L Biron

photo credit: SFTHQ

“For more than a year and a half”, Himal noted in September 2009, the Tibetan filmmaker Dhondup Wangchen “has languished in prison … awaiting trial on charges of ‘inciting separatism’.” Now, that wrong has been ‘righted’.

Wangchen fell afoul of the Chinese authorities in March 2008. He had shot some 35 hours of frank interviews with ethnic Tibetans across the high plateau, in which they discussed their feelings regarding the continued Chinese presence in Tibet and well as the then-upcoming Beijing Olympic Games, slated for the following August. Although Wangchen and his collaborator, Jigme Gyatso, were subsequently arrested, the tapes themselves were shipped out to Wangchen’s cousin, who was living in exile in Switzerland; the material was eventually made into a 25-minute film, Jigdrel (Leaving Fear Behind). It is unclear whether the subsequent international acclaim that the film received – having been filmed in more than 30 countries over the past two years, including at a secret showing in Beijing during the Olympics – helped or hindered Wangchen’s subsequent fate. Either way, in late December, the Chinese authorities put an end to their dithering over how to deal with the 36-year-old filmmaker, and sentenced him to six years of imprisonment for ‘subversion’. (Jigme Gyatso, meanwhile, was released after being held for seven months, during which time he was allegedly tortured.)

It is also unclear whether the international outcry that had continued to rise in recent months over Wangchen’s imprisonment helped or hurt that court ruling. While six years is clearly an unacceptable prison sentence for having been involved in producing what is by any standard a laudably even-handed, un-sensationalistic bit of filmmaking (particularly for such a notoriously explosive subject), it is also clear that far more draconian means were available to the Chinese authorities, should they have wished to use them. Wangchen’s chosen court representation was officially disallowed from involvement, after all, and observers had long been clear that there was no reason to assume that the eventual court action would be either transparent or fair. In the event, Wangchen’s family – including those in Xining, Qinghai, where the case was heard – were not even alerted to the fact that the hearing was finally going forward.

In this context, a six-year sentence might strike some as better than many of the alternatives. Almost simultaneous with Wangchen’s ruling, after all, the Chinese authorities sentenced five more ethnic Uyghurs to death for their involvement in the July 2009 demonstrations in Urumqi, in Xinjiang; that brought the total number of death sentences for the Xinjiang violence to 22 since September alone, while at least a dozen more have been given life sentences for their participation in the separatism-inspired violence. Yet given the continued rumours of Wangchen’s ill health – he is reported to have contracted Hepatitis B while in prison, and not to be receiving adequate medical care – it is possible to read the ruling as a relatively ‘lenient’ reaction arrived at in response to the international spotlight that has been shone on the case – but one that will nonetheless put Wangchen permanently out of commission.

The work, meanwhile, remains for all to see. “It is those who agreed to speak boldly on camera who have left their fear behind,” Himal wrote in September. “As can be seen from the aftermath, it is perhaps the Chinese authorities who have not.” Unfortunately, this most recent action again underscores the fact that fear-based reactions are oftentimes the most dangerous of all. Yet at this point, it is important to recall that Wangchen, despite his relative inexperience as a filmmaker, did not stumble blindly into his current situation. Prior to beginning his interviewing, he moved his wife and children out of Tibet, to India, where they remain today. Indeed, that type of courage is imbued in each of the more than 100 Tibetans who agreed to speak with Wangchen (around 20 are featured), particularly those whose faces remained notably uncovered. “They were willing to be filmed,” Wangchen explains in the film. “I also asked clearly about filming and explained that they didn’t have to show their faces. Some said that we absolutely had to show their faces, otherwise it wasn’t worth speaking to them.” Read a full transcript of what they had to say here. For more info http://www.leavingfearbehind.com/

– Carey L Biron

Stills from 'Jigdrel, Leaving Fear Behind'

A ten-point agreement between me, a cyclist, and you, someone who needs four wheels to get around (trucks, buses, micros and motorcyclists – your time too will come):

One: Despite any pretension to the contrary, on the road we are equals.

Two: When in doubt, remember: yes, I am riding my cycle because I choose to do so.

Three: I will leave as much space in the roadway as possible, but I will not get off of my cycle to let you pass.

Four: Horns are no substitute for a) prudence, b) civility or c) brakes.

Five: Keep in mind the fact that, in most heavy-traffic situations, I’m actually faster than you. Allowing me to go first is thus just good flow management – and I’ll reciprocate when the roles are reversed.

Six: Based on number four, if you cut me off unnecessarily I will do everything in my power to return the favour immediately. If you’re planning on turning quickly, just wait the additional few seconds behind me.

Seven: If you are in the wrong lane, that means that you are in the WRONG LANE – neither high speed, nor loud sounds, nor flashing lights nor generally acting like a jerk make for right of way when you’re in the wrong lane.

Eight: Oh, you’ve noticed that I am fitter and more energetic than you are, not to mention less of a blowhard? So have I. Oh, you’ve noticed that people can stand behind my cycle and not cough and wipe their eyes? So have I.

Nine: Take note of the fact that I am not enclosed in steel and plastic as you are – rather, I am open to the elements, and highly damageable.

Ten: Not being enclosed in steel and plastic, I can hear you coming from a very long ways away – no reason to blast me with your horn, unless you’re horny.

Bonus: We will both continue to respect the egg-delivery bicyclists as the saints of the roadway.

-Carey L Biron