Suman Sahai
The PepsiCo case is getting curiouser. First
the company filed a case against nine Gujarat farmers seeking damages of 1.05
crores from each, for growing potatoes of a variety over which it claimed
exclusive rights. This was followed by a furor in the media, unusual since
agriculture and farmers are not front page news at the best of times and
certainly not in the middle of frenetic campaigning for general elections. Then
came the news that PepsiCo was withdrawing the case, rumored as it was , amidst
negotiations involving the Gujarat government that was brokering a deal in
favor of PepsiCo.
Even as newsprint is being dedicated to analyzing
the how and why of the company’s withdrawal, is the sober realization that
though the offer for withdrawal was made at a court hearing on 26 April , the
company has in fact not withdrawn the case against farmers as yet. So was the
declaration that they were withdrawing the case just a jumla ? Was it just buying time to quieten the howls of protest
from civil society groups till they were able to work out a deal
After an
overkill action against farmers with average land holdings between 1.2 and 1.6
hectare, the company probably realized the PR disaster of a huge multinational company suing small
and marginal farmers for enormous amounts of money. It offered an out of court
settlement with conditions saying that farmers “have to sign an agreement with us to
buy the seeds and sell the produce to us. Or, the farmers give an undertaking
that they will never use our registered seeds without permission in future.
Whatever stock they have at present, should be given to us.”
Why on earth would farmers agree to this
bizarre offer ? They have committed no offence. It must be clear that farmers
have acted fully within the Farmers Rights granted to them under the Indian
law. Contrary to its claim of having an “exclusive” right, PepsiCo only has a
Breeders Rights registration for its potato variety under the Protection of
Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFRA). Breeders Rights is not
an exclusive right, there are many exemptions to it.
In the Indian legislation, legal rights have
been granted to both Breeders and
Farmers. Farmers Rights grants farmers the right
to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share and sell seed of a variety protected
under this Act in the same manner as before the coming into force of this
Act. This means that farmers can sell
the seed of any variety , even if it has a Breeders Rights registration, for
local use as they have always done. Farmers cannot brand this seed with the
Breeder’s name, in this case FC 5.
The Gujarat farmers were not
selling any branded seed. They have committed no violation of the law. They can
buy seed from other farmers which they have apparently done and they are fully
within their rights to cultivate the crop and sell it wherever they like.
PepsiCo has no business insisting the
farmer buy seed only from them or that they sell only to them. This is sheer
bullying and intimidation.
Farmers Rights in the Indian legislation was
finalized after nearly ten years of negotiations with three different
governments and it was discussed by two Joint Parliamentary Committees. Its structure was finalized by an Expert Committee
chaired by the legendary Dr MS
Swaminathan. This author was a member of that Expert Committee and Gene
Campaign (of which the author is chairperson)
along with others in civil society campaigned ceaselessly for the rights of
farmers in the Indian legislation on seeds. The PPVFRA was enacted by
Parliament in 2001 and it is accepted by the WTO-TRIPS as compliant with our
international commitments.
India is the only country in the world to have
enacted an Intellectual Property Rights law
on seeds that gives rights to both Breeders and Farmers. Under pressure from
the multinational seed industry, every other country has given rights only to
breeders which are increasingly seed companies like Monsanto and PepsiCo.
The Gujarat government that
is playing arbitrator in the PepsiCo case must do nothing to jeopardize the
farmer’s interest. The aggrieved farmers
should now consider filing a suit for injunction and damages against PepsiCo,
damages for the harassment and mental anguish caused and injunction against any
further harassment.
Dr Suman Sahai is a scientist and chairperson of the Gene Campaign
