How the Patent System has been Subverted in Favour of Corporates | Asian Age

World Intellectual Property Day is observed annually on 26 April. As we prepare to commemorate this day, it’s a good time to reflect on what the philosophy of the patent system was when it originated and what it has morphed into today. Patents were the first form of intellectual property rights (IPR) to be granted and codified formally, now there are many other forms of IPR.

Granting a patent to the inventor of a particular product was actually done with the purpose of benefiting society at large. The way to benefit society was to give an advantage for a limited period of time to the inventor of th product or a novel method or process of developing a product so that innovation was supported. If innovation was encouraged by giving privileges to the inventor then society at large would benefit because innovations would bring in new things and new ways of doing things. This would avoid stagnation and lead to fresh growth and development. The patent system granted an exclusive marketing right, usually for 20 years, so the innovator could make money by selling his or her product or process without any competition. This meant a reasonably good return on investments so to speak. The financial gain was the attraction to continue innovation.

However it cannot be in the interest of any society to grant a monopoly to a single individual or agency , to benefit just one person at the cost of everybody else. The patent system allowed exclusive financial gain but did not allow an exclusive forever monopoly. The patent was not a forever thing but valid for 20 years after which the patent information could be used by anyone. Public interest clauses were included to prevent ‘forever benefits’ to the innovator without sharing anything with the public.

The first safeguard was transparency. According to patent rules, the moment you filed for a patent you had to make your invention public in a way that anyone versed in that domain could replicate it. You had to declare the exact way you in which you invented that product, sharing the ‘know how’ and ‘do how’ of how that product was created. Thus the new technology was transferred to the public and was available for use after the expiry of the patent period. This feature has often been subverted by latter day patent applicants, chiefly companies. The declaration of the invention is kept deliberately obtuse, missing a few key steps so that it cannot be replicated effectively. 

An important public interest feature of the patent system was ‘utility’. This meant the patented product had to be useful for the public. An innovation, however creative and novel, could not get a patent if it did not have demonstrable utility. This ensured that society benefited from the grant of the patent.

Another essential step was the feature of Compulsory Licensing. This is a clause in the patent system that allows governments to intervene when a monopoly turns hostile to public interest and becomes a disadvantage to society at large. For example, in the case of a patented medicine, if the pharma company that holds the patent is not providing that medicine in the quantities required or is pricing it too high and therefore putting it out of the reach of common people, then the government can intervene. Under the Compulsory Licensing clause, the government can grant a license to another company to produce the patented medicine and give compensation to the original patent holder. In this way the welfare of society was given primacy and the patent holder was not allowed to exercise its monopoly to the detriment of citizens. 

A third important feature of the patent system which was followed in earlier times is “Working the Patent’. This means if you have been granted a patent right in a particular country you have to manufacture that product in that country. You cannot just import it and exercise your monopoly in the market, giving nothing in return. So why was it important to work the patent? Producing the product in the country where you were the patent holder made sure that there was both skill building and diffusion of technology in lieu of granting exclusive marketing rights. This feature balanced both interests and society didn’t lose out.

Unfortunately the patent system is being slowly subverted not to balance societal welfare with (limited) exclusive marketing but to weigh in favour of monopolies, the corporate sector being a significant holder of patents. Governments seem to have allowed “Working the Patent” to be disbanded to quite an extent. Patent holders increasingly import the products from their home countries and just exploit the local market, hence there is neither technology diffusion or skill building. Compulsory Licensing clauses are being fought tooth and nail by the corporate sector and becoming difficult to implement.

Another challenge to a balanced patent system is the attempt to “Evergreen” a patent and extend its life beyond 20 years. In this case the company makes small, usually trivial changes in the process or the product, without substantially altering the properties of the original product. It then claims innovation of a new product and applies for a patent on this product so that it can extend the monopoly of 20 years in the market for another 20 years. Essentially the core product remains the same into which no new R&D has been invested, no new properties have been added and society does not get any new benefits from this tweaked product. This Ever-greening of patents is a trick that the corporate sector has developed to line its coffers. Some government are able to resist this dishonest move and some are not.

So, there you have it. The original patent system that started out as a system to benefit the society and promote its betterment has now turned into a tool of exploitation in the hands of the corporate sector aided by pliant, and dare I say, some corrupt administrators.

source: https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/suman-sahai-how-the-entire-patent-system-was-subverted-for-corporates-1952386

Women Farmers Are So Critical: It’s Time To Empower Them Worldwide | Asian Age

A lot of research has been done to understand the role of women in agriculture. It’s now fairly well established that the empowerment of rural women is the key to agricultural development, adequate food production and efforts to end hunger and poverty. Despite this, women remain ignored as key actors. Though women constitute nearly half (over 43 per cent) the global agricultural labour force, they face major cultural and socio-economic constraints which prevent them from realising their full potential.

Women farmers work hard in the fields to grow the food that feeds the world but their contribution isn’t acknowledged. They are the “invisible workforce” which fails to get recognition from the government, media and industry. Instead of being seen as farmers, they are relegated to a lower category, as farm helpers. This prevents them from accessing opportunities and training in government schemes meant for “farmers”. While they do agricultural work equal to that of men, they are paid half the wages.

Recognising this as injustice, the Gene Campaign set up groups of women working in the field in Mahila Kisan Samitis. Establishing their identity as farmers gave them confidence to claim a place in government programmes. The samitis were the recipients of all training programmes conducted by the Gene Campaign on agronomic practices, improved millet cultivation, value addition, entrepreneurship and financial literacy.

Women’s property rights are either non-existent or restricted in most places. Women farmers usually don’t own farmland. When land is in their name, it was usually bought by men to claim welfare schemes meant for women. Such land is used and administered by the men of the family and the women know they are owners only on paper. The women often don’t have any papers in their name. This lack of official recognition denies them access to government schemes for farmers, institutional credit, farming inputs like fertilisers, farm equipment and market linkages.

Women farmers often have mobility or cultural constraints that restrict their access to markets, technology, seeds, fertilisers, credit, etc. They can’t access government mandis, the market where farmers gather to sell their produce, get information on government schemes and programmes, exchange information with other farmers and make connections with government officials. Denying them all this due to cultural constraints and biases puts a limit and prevents them from optimising their farm productivity.

This is tragic on all counts. Evidence shows that if women farmers in developing countries had the same access to productive resources as men, they could increase yields on their farms by 20–30 per cent and raise the total agricultural output by 2.5-4 per cent. This would reduce the number of hungry people in the world by 12–17 per cent.

The thrust to “modernise” agriculture by mechanisation has implications for women farmers. Who really benefits from this focus on mechanisation? Both men and women farmers? Farm machinery is almost always made for men, keeping in mind their muscular strength. This makes it difficult for use by women, who are built much smaller. In addition, the new machines do things like transplanting, which often displaces women from this labour-intensive work. While men take advantage of the mechanisation boom, women are left out of capacity building and training programmes, preventing them from using such machines in future too.

Half the pay and double the burden: Women farmers actually work harder than men. Apart from the demanding manual work in the field, they have multiple responsibilities in and around the home. Fetching water, firewood, fodder, often from long distances, household chores, childcare, etc. There is no remuneration for all this, and their agricultural work is either unpaid or underpaid. The additional burden of domestic duties with no support from the family takes a toll on their health. In developing countries across Africa, Asia and the Pacific region, women typically work 12–13 hours more per week. It’s a truism, often demonstrated, that when more income is put into the hands of women, the whole family benefits — there is improved household nutrition, better health and education.

Excluded from decision-making: Scientists, policymakers and others in the government usually tend to think of farmers as unskilled and lacking in knowledge, who have to be taught farming. This bias is several times worse in the case of women farmers. The fact is that both men and women farmers are repositories of a vast amount of knowledge about biodiversity, seeds, farming, etc. Women have a different kind of knowledge base than men.

Empower them: Women farmers can show remarkable outcomes if they are given a level playing field. Giving them this level playing field does not require giant financial outlays. It’s not so hard to bring change. A few doables:

• Start community awareness programmes to break patriarchal norms and enable women’s progress.

• Ensure proper access to healthcare and employment.

• Provide opportunities for academic and vocational education.

• Introduce pro-women policies; facilitate land ownership and access to agricultural resources.

• Pay them equal wages.

• There is an urgent need to invest in mechanised farm machinery with the woman in mind. This should be appropriate to her form and be comfortable to use.

• Involve them in decision-making at both farm and policy level.

• Reduce and redistribute household duties (this one may need persuasive change).

Source: https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/suman-sahai-women-farmers-are-so-critical-its-time-to-empower-them-worldwide-1929677

‘Ghost Villages’ a Growing Threat in Uttarakhand & India’s Hill Areas | Asian Age

Recently, a tragic situation arose at a village in Uttarakhand’s villages are emptying out, with young people moving out for a variety of reasons, sometimes leaving elderly parents, and often just locking up their homes.

Forsaking the village has become common in Uttarakhand’s hill districts. The youth don’t want to continue with the traditional occupation of agriculture: it’s not remunerative enough. Thus, abandoned fields, collapsing cattle sheds and locked houses define areas that once sustained vibrant agrarian communities.

These “ghost villages” are described as a natural outcome of modernisation. But that’s a false narrative. Modernisation does not mean abandoning the traditional, rather improving and enhancing the traditional. That is where policymakers have failed. Little effort has been made in villages in hill areas, particularly in Uttarakhand, to diversify and develop the village economy, create good educational and health facilities and provide attractive jobs and income opportunities. It’s also the result of not investing in agriculture, which is the economy’s mainstay in these areas. The new element is the contribution of television and now social media, showing fantasy worlds. The triumph of illusion over reality creates a magnetic attraction for the younger generation. It’s not just farming (seen as backward anyway) and not paying enough, it’s the lure of city glamour that is drawing the youth there.

Today’s rural youth don’t migrate merely in search of jobs; they also migrate in search of a status they think rural life does not offer them. Urban life is projected as success. TV and social media relentlessly glorify consumption, leisure and spectacle. For young men, ogling fashionably dressed women holds a particular fascination. Farming, by contrast, is physically demanding, socially invisible, and economically unrewarding. Simply not “sexy” enough!

This cultural shift has had devastating consequences. Working on one’s own land, tending crops, or managing livestock is now seen by many young people as a lowly activity and a mark of failure, of non-achievement. The dignity historically associated with farming has been systematically eroded. The pride in being masters of your own land and the idea of caring for the land has been replaced by the desire for the “successful” urban lifestyle.

Young women’s aspirations reflect similar pressures. Rural women have always carried a disproportionate burden as unpaid labour: caring for livestock, collecting fodder, managing households and working in fields. These contributions remain invisible and unvalued. Many young women see village life as a trap, rather than a life within a community. Marriage increasingly becomes a route out of rural life, not a partnership to strengthen it. At the same time, young men aspire to urban-oriented partners, while rural women seek spouses with salaried jobs and city addresses.

Underlying this is the economic reality of farming. Agriculture no longer provides a reliable or adequate income. Rising input costs, volatile prices, lack of assured markets and weak institutional support have made farming unviable for small and marginal farmers. Governments have spoken endlessly about doubling farmers’ incomes, but that piece of propaganda blew up in no time, making farmers even more cynical about any government support.

Land ownership patterns add another layer of complexity. In many villages, land remains jointly held by extended families. Fragmentation, disputes and economic interest make sale or consolidation difficult. Families migrate but retain ownership, leaving land uncultivated. Terraces collapse, invasive species spread, and fragile hill ecosystems degrade. Social migration becomes ecological decline.

The irony is that the urban economy absorbing this migration is far less stable than it appears. Most rural youth do not enter secure, well-paid employment in the cities. They enter informal jobs with long hours, poor working conditions and no social security. Housing is expensive, public services are stretched and social isolation is common. Yet the illusion persists.

The cost of empty villages is far greater than the loss of a population. When villages die, food security weakens, agro-biodiversity erodes and traditional knowledge disappears. India’s resilience has always rested on its rural systems: diverse crops, local food cultures and decentralised livelihoods. So if villages continue to empty out, India will lose the foundations of self-reliance in food systems, ecological balance and social stability.

Yet reversing this trend requires more than emotional appeals. Farming must be made economically viable, socially respected and institutionally supported. Rural areas need education, healthcare, connectivity and opportunities for local enterprise. Most important, agriculture must be repositioned as skilled, modern and dignified work.

Let’s recall the most far-sighted and inspiring call to action made by Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1965: “Self-sufficiency in food to be no less important than an impregnable defence system in the preservation of our freedom and independence.” This was how the “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan” slogan was born.

https://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/suman-sahai-ghost-villages-a-growing-threat-in-uttarakhand-indias-hill-areas-1942449

Consumers Short Changed On Blended Petrol

Suman Sahai

Ever since India’s ethanol blending program (mixing ethanol with petrol) was started, there have been concerns about the impact of ethanol on the functioning of the automobile engines.

The original timeline for mixing ethanol with petroleum was 10% by 2022 and the blending target for 20% ethanol was 2030. Both blending targets were reached early, 6 months in the case of the 10% target and 5 years for the 20% target which was reached in 2025.

As the government was racing ahead to increase the amount of ethanol it was mixing with the petrol that the consumer was buying, it neglected to keep the consumer informed about the implications of ethanol blending in automobile fuels. Lots of expert commentaries began to appear on the potential downside of ethanol blending. Reports are coming in that the fuel efficiency of blended petrol was poor, that the mileage derived from blended petrol was lower than normal petrol because ethanol has less energy than gasoline.

This short changes the owners of all, four, three and two wheeler vehicles and has economic implications for every vehicle owner. This will be especially hard hitting for commercial vehicles like the three wheeler autos and transporters.

Apart from this, there were reports that the acceleration of vehicles using blended fuel, was lower and even more serious, ethanol blended fuel will damage older vehicles with engines that are not made for its use. Ethanol’s oxygen content and its higher moisture content can also cause rusting of metallic parts and disintegration of plastic and rubber fittings in the engine. It stands to reason that the higher the ethanol content in the petrol, the greater the damage to the motor. So 20% ethanol blending will in principle cause more damage to the engine than 10 % blended petrol.

The government continued to rebut these warnings, harping instead on the benefits to the environment because of lower emissions and less pollution. Its other justification was the saving of foreign exchange by having to import less petroleum. All this became untenable in the face of evidence of damage and finally the Petroleum Ministry had to concede that there were in fact problems with petrol that was mixed with ethanol.

In its statement of 5 August, 2025, while continuing to emphasize the benefits of ethanol blended fuel and reiterating that there weren’t really any harmful impacts on the engine, the government was compelled to admit that “ethanol has a lower energy density than petrol, leading to a slight reduction in mileage, about 1–2% for four-wheelers calibrated for E20 and designed for E10, and roughly 3–6% in other vehicles”.

So older vehicles will face a mileage reduction of upto 6% ! The Ministry adds that “this small efficiency loss can be reduced further with better engine tuning and ( putting in ) E20-compatible materials.”

Going further, the Ministry says “In some older vehicles, replacing certain rubber parts or gaskets may be recommended after about 20,000 to 30,000 km of use. This replacement is cost-effective and can be conveniently performed during routine vehicle servicing.”

Clearly, the government has been less than open on the downside of ethanol blending. It should have informed the consumers about what it was proposing to do and what the implications of such a change would be. Billboards at petrol stations could have laid out the pros and cons of ethanol blending so that the consumer was not in the dark about what she was putting into her vehicle, Gas station attendants should have been trained to answer questions on the benefits and drawbacks of ethanol mixed petrol, None of this was done.

The two main questions from the consumer’s standpoint:

If cheaper ethanol is being mixed with petrol, the price of the blended fuel should be lower than normal petrol for the consumer. But that is not the case. So in essence, the government is pocketing all the savings on the petrol import bill instead of passing some of it to the consumer. In addition, it is also making money off the consumer by charging her the full price of normal petrol instead of the reduced price of blended petrol.

 While the government rakes in the money in the above manner, it has conveniently passed on to the consumer, the costs of reduced fuel efficiency and reduced mileage etc. In addition, it has also passed on to the consumer the costs of changing engine parts to rectify the damage that ethanol blended fuel will cause. Suman Sahai is the founder of Gene Campaign. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

Source: https://www.thecitizen.in/opinion/government-gets-the-money-consumers-pay-the-cost-1193734

 

Keeping American GM soya and corn out is in India’s economic interest

 Suman Sahai

The two main agriculture subjects are opening up the dairy sector, on which India is so far firm, saying it’s a “red line” that cannot be crossed since it is the livelihood base of a large number of rural families, with women being the main participants in the milk sector.

The trade deal negotiations with the United States are going through their ups and downs, as hard lines are sought to be softened on the Indian side and US President Donald Trump is showing a hint of flexibility to clinch the deal that he wants. The earlier July 9 deadline to finalise the bilateral talks was later extended till August 1. There are some issues on the bilateral agenda over which India is justifiably anxious as they have far-reaching social and economic implications. The two main agriculture subjects are opening up the dairy sector, on which India is so far firm, saying it’s a “red line” that cannot be crossed since it is the livelihood base of a large number of rural families, with women being the main participants in the milk sector.

The other bone of contention is the US insistence on including corn and soybean as agricultural exports to India. There is little movement on this so far. The problem is that most American soyabean and corn, if not all, is genetically modified. The official Indian policy doesn’t permit the entry of genetically modified (GM) foods. India must stand firm on the GM foods issue, offering other agricultural products like fruits, vegetables and nuts for imports instead.

Allowing American export of GM corn and soybean is against India’s economic interests. First, there is the matter of the safety of such foods. Equally important is whether India’s farmers and consumers are better off with a food production system based on an indigenous low chemical green agriculture, natural or organic farming, or a patented GM technology that is dependent on expensive seeds and high chemical inputs?

Let’s take soybean, India is one of the few countries today that is exclusively growing non-GM soybean. It’s thus in a position to become a dominant soya supplier to large markets like Japan and South Korea which are finicky about using only non-GM soya for cultural reasons. If we allow the import of GM soya from the US, our GM-free soya will certainly get contaminated and unacceptable to markets like Japan and South Korea. This will mean the loss of lucrative markets for our soybean farmers.

Once our soybean is contaminated with GM soya, we will not find it easy to find markets for this soya. Countries like the US and Brazil produce huge quantities of highly subsidised GM soya, against which the unsubsidised Indian mixed GM soya will not stand a chance. The net result will be that we will lose an assured market and not be able to enter the open market. A massive financial loss. Apart from the loss of markets, there is another financial aspect to contamination of non-GM consignments of food with GM food. That is the matter of liability for the contamination. It will be worthwhile to recall the cost of contamination cases from the past.

The StarLink corn case: In 2000, Starlink corn, a GM corn hybrid developed by Aventis CropScience that had not been approved for human consumption, was found in over 300 food products. Aventis had to recall the corn, clean out transportation systems and storage facilities that could have carried the contaminated corn and pay damages to companies that had unknowingly used the contaminated corn. One settlement resulted in $60 million going to the Taco Bell franchisees for lost sales due to the damage to the Taco Bell brand. At that time, Aventis had estimated the cost of recall, clean-up and damages could go up to $1 billion.

It didn’t stop there. Three years later, in 2003, farmers who had not planted StarLink corn but suffered economic losses because corn prices fell after the StarLink scare settled a lawsuit against the company for $100 million.

How will India deal with such matters when contamination takes place? It does not have any laws on liability and redress, so it cannot fix accountability and responsibility in the event of contamination with GM seeds. When (not if) GM soya imported from the US contaminates the non-GM soya of Indian farmers, who will pay the damages for financial losses incurred due to lost markets? Who can be made to pay for clean-up of systems? Or, are we to be presented with a fait accompli and simply be forced to go GM even if it results in huge economic losses for our farming community and our consumers?

Apart from the traditional markets demanding GM-free soya, there is a new and burgeoning demand from an emerging food sector -- that of plant-based foods. This industry sources strictly non-GM soya because that’s what its customers insist on. Here is another growing market that non-GM soya producers like India should tap and capture without delay.

The global plant-based food market is demonstrating near vertical growth. Analysts project that this market could reach $162 billion by 2030, up from $29.4 billion in 2020. This means an increase of roughly $132 billion in a span of 10 years!

The explosive growth in the plant-based food sector is driven by a significant change in consumer food preferences. There are ethical considerations and growing concerns for animal welfare, giving rise to a sizeable population of vegans. In addition, there is an emerging health consciousness about the benefits of plant-based diets compared to meat-based diets. For India’s non-GM soya producers, this is a fortuitous development. Owing to its huge population and cultural factors over meat consumption, the Asia-Pacific region is expected to have the largest share of the plant-based foods market. So, India’s non-GM soya market is at its doorstep. It would be madness to risk this.

Dr Suman Sahai is a scientist trained in genetics and the founder-chairperson of the Gene Campaign, a research and policy organisation working on food and livelihoods.

Source: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/columnists/suman-sahai-keeping-american-gm-soya-and-corn-out-is-in-indias-economic-interest-1894426

Gene Bank: नया राष्ट्रीय जीन बैंक भविष्य की बुनियाद, सरकार करे इस जैविक संपदा का संरक्षण

 डॉ. सुमन सहाय, संस्थापक निदेशक, जीन कैम्पेन 

सार

Gene Bank: भारत सरकार ने दूसरा राष्ट्रीय जीन बैंक (National Gene Bank) स्थापित किए जाने की घोषणा की है। पौधों एवं जीवों के जर्म प्लाज्म यानी उनके जीन्स हमारी जैविक संपदा हैं। खाद्य संप्रभुता और टिकाऊ भविष्य के लिए इस संपदा का स्वामित्व और नियंत्रण सरकारी संस्थाओं के पास होना चाहिए। 

नए जीन बैंक की स्थापना में सार्वजनिक और निजी क्षेत्र की भागीदारी की बात कही गई है। - फोटो : गांव जंक्शन

खेती और खाद्य सुरक्षा पर बढ़ती वैश्विक चिंताओं के बीच भारत सरकार ने इस साल बजट में दूसरा राष्ट्रीय जीन बैंक (National Gene Bank) स्थापित करने की घोषणा की है। इस नए जीन बैंक का उद्देश्य खाद्य सुरक्षा और कृषि क्षेत्र को जलवायु परिवर्तन (Climate Change) एवं प्राकृतिक आपदाओं (Natural Disasters) से जुड़ी चुनौतियों से लड़ने के लिए अधिक मजबूती प्रदान करना है। जीन बैंक न केवल राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर, बल्कि अंतरराष्ट्रीय स्तर पर भी खाद्य सुरक्षा (Food Security) के लिए जरूरी हैं। इसीलिए, नया जीन बैंक बनाने के निर्णय का स्वागत किया जाना चाहिए। हालांकि, नए जीन बैंक की स्थापना की बात हो रही है तो आम जनमानस को भी इसकी अवधारणा, आवश्यकता और इससे जुड़ी चुनौतियों को समझना चाहिए।

बीजों की आनुवंशिक विविधता हमारी अमूल्य धरोहर है, जीन बैंक इसे संजोने का काम करते हैं। - फोटो : गांव जंक्शन

जलवायु परिवर्तन और जीन बैंक (Climate Change and Gene Bank)

जलवायु परिवर्तन के कारण मौसम का पैटर्न बदल रहा है। बाढ़, सूखा, जंगल की आग जैसी आपदाएं आम हो गई हैं। भविष्य में, इस तरह की प्राकृतिक आपदाओं का सामना करने के लिए अभी से तैयारी करनी होगी। जीन बैंक इसी तैयारी का एक अहम हिस्सा हैं। भारत ही नहीं, पूरी दुनिया में विभिन्न देश अपने-अपने तरीके से जीन बैंक बना रहे हैं। मिसाल के तौर पर, फिलीपींस में इंटरनेशनल राइस रिसर्च इंस्टीट्यूट (IRRI) में धान की हजारों प्रजातियों को संरक्षित किया गया है। अगर किसी देश में आपदा के कारण धान की प्रजाति नष्ट हो जाए या जलवायु परिवर्तन के कारण नई प्रजाति की जरूरत पड़े, तो वहां से बीज लिए जा सकते हैं।

जलवायु परिवर्तन ने फसलों के समय को पूरी तरह बदल दिया है। पहले किसानों को पता था कि बिचड़ा बोने का समय कब है और फसल को खेत में ले जाने का समय कब है। लेकिन, अब बेमौसम बरसात होती है। फसलों की जो प्रजातियां पहले फलती-फूलती रही हैं, वो बदलती जलवायु के चलते शायद भविष्य में न टिक पाएं। इसके लिए, हमें नई प्रजातियों की जरूरत होगी और यह तभी संभव है जब हमारे पास बीजों का भंडार हो। जीन बैंक इस समस्या का एक ठोस जवाब हैं। भारत में भी हैदराबाद में भी एक अंतरराष्ट्रीय जीन बैंक स्थापित है, जहां कई तरह के बीजों का संरक्षण किया जाता है। जीन बैंकों में लिक्विड नाइट्रोजन और शून्य से कम तापमान पर बीजों को संरक्षित रखा जाता है। इस तरह, बीज लंबे समय तक जीवित रहते हैं। जीन बैंक भविष्य की आपदाओं से निपटने का एक मजबूत मॉडल हैं। 

खाद्य संप्रभुता यानी हमारे भोजन का नियंत्रण हमारे अपने हाथों में होना चाहिए। - फोटो : गांव जंक्शन

खाद्य संप्रभुता (Food Sovereignty) का सवाल 
नए जीन बैंक की स्थापना में सार्वजनिक और निजी क्षेत्र की भागीदारी की बात कही गई है। लेकिन, क्या यह कदम वास्तव में हमारी जरूरतों को पूरा करेगा? क्या यह हमारी खाद्य संप्रभुता (Food Sovereignty) को सुरक्षित रखेगा? इस पर विचार करने की जरूरत है। निजी क्षेत्र की भागीदारी इस योजना से जुड़ा एक ऐसा पहलू है, जो चिंता का विषय है। सही मायनों में तो खाद्य सुरक्षा की जिम्मेदारी सरकार, विश्वविद्यालयों, और सार्वजनिक शोध संस्थानों के पास होनी चाहिए।

खाद्य संप्रभुता यानी हमारे भोजन का नियंत्रण हमारे अपने हाथों में होना चाहिए। भारत ने इसके लिए लंबी लड़ाई लड़ी है। वर्ष 2000 के दशक में बीजों के पेटेंट के खिलाफ एक बड़ा आंदोलन हुआ, जिसका मकसद यह सुनिश्चित करना था कि बीजों पर किसी निजी कंपनी का कब्जा न हो। इस दौरान भारत ने बीजों पर पेटेंट को अस्वीकार किया था। जीन कैम्पेन की इस जैविक संपदा के संरक्षण और नीतिगत हस्तक्षेप में बड़ी भूमिका रही है। 

प्राइवेट सेक्टर को बीजों के संरक्षण के काम में शामिल किया जाता है, तो बीजों पर उनका प्रभुत्व बढ़ सकता है। - फोटो : गांव जंक्शन

जीन बैंक में निजी क्षेत्र की भूमिका (Role of Private Sector in Gene Bank)
यह समझना होगा कि यहां बात प्राइवेट सेक्टर को जीन बैंक के फायदों से वंचित करने की नहीं है। प्राइवेट सेक्टर के पास तो जीन बैंक से बीज प्राप्त करने का अधिकार पहले से ही है, जिससे वे नई किस्मों के बीज का विकास करते रहे हैं। लेकिन, बीजों के संरक्षण में उनकी भागीदारी जरूरी नहीं है। संरक्षण का काम किसानों के खेतों से बीज इकट्ठा करना और उन्हें जीन बैंक में संरक्षित करके रखना है। जिसके पास संरक्षण की जिम्मेदारी होगी, उसकी इस मोर्चे पर ताकत बढ़ेगी।

जर्म प्लाज्म (Germ Plasm) यानी जेनेटिक मैटेरियल बीज या किसी भी पादप सामग्री में मौजूद जीन हमारी जैविक संपदा हैं। यह संपदा केवल पौधों तक सीमित नहीं है, बल्कि गाय, बकरी जैसी पशु प्रजातियों के संरक्षण में भी शामिल है। लेकिन, इन सभी जर्म प्लाज्म का स्वामित्व और नियंत्रण राष्ट्रीय संस्थाओं के पास होना चाहिए। प्राइवेट सेक्टर को इसमें शामिल करने से हमारी खाद्य सुरक्षा और जैव-विविधता के लिए चिंताएं खड़ी हो सकती हैं। इसीलिए, बेहतर होगा कि जर्म प्लाज्म के संरक्षण का काम राष्ट्रीय संस्थाओं, विश्वविद्यालयों, और शोध संस्थानों के पास ही रहे।

अगर प्राइवेट सेक्टर को बीजों के संरक्षण के काम में शामिल किया जाता है, तो बीजों पर उनका प्रभुत्व बढ़ सकता है। हालांकि, प्राइवेट सेक्टर संरक्षित बीजों से नई प्रजातियां विकसित करके मुनाफा कमा सकते हैं। लेकिन, उस मुनाफे का एक हिस्सा किसानों को भी मिलना चाहिए। इसके लिए एक नेशनल फंड स्थापित किया गया है, जिसमें योगदान देकर प्राइवेट सेक्टर को भी किसानों के कल्याण के लिए अपनी जिम्मेदारी निभानी चाहिए। जैसे किसी तकनीक के लिए ट्रांसफर फीस दी जाती है, वैसे ही बीजों पर पहला हक किसानों का है और उसका लाभ भी किसानों को मिलना चाहिए। 

जीन बैंक बीजों को संरक्षित करने का एक वैज्ञानिक तरीका है। - फोटो : गांव जंक्शन

जीन बैंक क्या होता है (What is a Gene Bank)
जीन बैंक (Gene Bank) को समझने से पहले हमें यह जानना जरूरी है कि जीन क्या होता है। जीन वह आनुवंशिक इकाई है, जो किसी भी जीव की विशेषताओं को निर्धारित करती है। उदाहरण के लिए, आपके बाल काले हैं या भूरे, आपकी नाक छोटी है या लंबी - यह सब जीन के कारण ही होता है। इसी तरह, फसलों के बीजों में मौजूद जीन यह तय करते हैं कि फसल कितनी पैदावार देगी, उसमें कीड़े लगेंगे या नहीं और उसकी रोग-प्रतिरोधक क्षमता कितनी होगी। जीन बैंक बीजों को संरक्षित करने का एक वैज्ञानिक तरीका है। इसका उद्देश्य यह सुनिश्चित करना है कि हमारे पास जीन का एक भंडार हमेशा उपलब्ध रहे, जिसे जरूरत पड़ने पर इस्तेमाल किया जा सके। 

देश का पहला जीन बैंक (India's First Gene Bank)
भारत में पहला जीन बैंक 1996 में दिल्ली में स्थापित किया गया था। यहां देशभर की विभिन्न फसल प्रजातियों के बीजों को संरक्षित किया गया है। संरक्षण का मतलब होता है बीजों को लंबे समय तक जीवित रखना। सामान्य तौर पर, बीज कुछ सालों तक तो ठीक रहते हैं, लेकिन उसके बाद खराब होने लगते हैं। बीजों को जीवित रखने के लिए इन्हें ठंडे वातावरण में रखा जाता है, जिसे कोल्ड स्टोरेज कहते हैं। इससे उनकी जीवन अवधि बढ़ जाती है। जीन बैंक का मकसद यही है कि बीज कई सालों तक सुरक्षित रहें, ताकि प्राकृतिक आपदाओं, जैसे - बाढ़, सूखा या भूकंप के बाद इनका इस्तेमाल दोबारा खेती शुरू करने के लिए किया जा सके। 

लद्दाख का अनूठा जीन बैंक  (Unique Gene Bank of Ladakh)
भारत में जीन बैंक की एक अनोखी मिसाल लद्दाख के चांगला में देखने को मिलती है। इसे एक बैकअप जीन बैंक की तरह समझा जा सकता है। यहां प्राकृतिक ठंड का इस्तेमाल बीजों को संरक्षित करने के लिए होता है। चांगला में हमेशा बर्फ रहती है, जिसे परमानेंट फ्रॉस्ट कहते हैं। यहां बिजली से रेफ्रिजरेशन की जरूरत नहीं पड़ती, जिससे यह पर्यावरण के लिहाज से भी बेहतर है। इस जीन बैंक में कई फसलों के बीज संरक्षित किए जाते हैं। यह एक स्मार्ट और टिकाऊ पहल है, जो प्राकृतिक संसाधनों का बेहतर उपयोग करती है। 

देश में कई ऐसे जीन बैंक स्थापित किए गए हैं, जो किसानों के साथ मिलकर काम करते हैं। - फोटो : गांव जंक्शन

जीन बैंक में किसानों की भागीदारी (Farmers' Participation in Gene Bank)
जीन बैंक केवल बड़े वैज्ञानिक संस्थानों तक सीमित नहीं हैं। देश में कई ऐसे जीन बैंक स्थापित किए गए हैं, जो किसानों के साथ मिलकर काम करते हैं। लेकिन, इन बैंकों को चलाने में बिजली का खर्च एक बड़ी चुनौती है। इसे हल करने के लिए एक दूसरा तरीका अपनाया जाता है। हर दो-तीन साल में बीजों को खेतों में उगाया जाता है। नई फसल से बीज लेकर फिर इन्हें बैंक में रखा जाता है। इससे बिजली का खर्च बचता है और किसानों की भागीदारी भी सुनिश्चित होती है। झारखंड, आंध्र प्रदेश, और पूर्वोत्तर भारत में यह तरीका सफलतापूर्वक अपनाया गया है। इसे भी जीन बैंक का एक रूप कहा जा सकता है, जो स्थानीय स्तर पर खाद्य सुरक्षा को मजबूत करता है। 

गहन सोच-विचार की जरूरत 
नए जीन बैंक की स्थापना का स्वागत करना चाहिए, क्योंकि यह हमारी खाद्य सुरक्षा को मजबूत करने और जलवायु परिवर्तन से निपटने की दिशा में एक मजबूत पहल साबित हो सकती है। लेकिन, प्राइवेट सेक्टर को इस पहल में शामिल करने से पहले गहराई से सोच-विचार करना होगा। संरक्षण का काम राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर होना चाहिए, ताकि किसानों और देश का हित सुरक्षित रहे। खाद्य संप्रभुता हमारे हाथ में होनी चाहिए, और जीन बैंक इसके लिए एक मजबूत आधार बन सकते हैं।

 Source: https://www.gaonjunction.com/gaon-post/drishtikon/new-national-gene-bank-is-the-foundation-of-the-future-government-should-conserve-this-biological-wealth