Modi, Xi will not hold talks at G-20 summit
Pull back or face serious consequences, China tells India
•With India and China asserting on Thursday that no bilateral meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping had been scheduled on the sidelines of the G-20 meeting in Germany, there was no immediate prospect of an end to the boundary standoff. Also China stepped up its verbal assault on India, warning it of ‘serious consequences’ if it did not withdraw its troops.
•“The Prime Minister is visiting Hamburg from July 6-8 for the G-20 summit. His pre-planned bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the summit are with Argentina, Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea, the U.K. and Vietnam,” Gopal Baglay, spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), said in response to a question. Mr. Baglay said Mr. Modi would participate in the BRICS leaders’ meeting which will be held a day before the main summit.
•Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said the necessary information would be shared in a timely manner, when asked about the possibility of a bilateral meeting of the leaders at the BRICS event.
•It is unusual for either country to announce that no bilateral meeting had been scheduled as both leaders have met in several multilateral meetings in the last three years.
•The MEA’s confirmation about not having a bilateral meeting came despite earlier reports that the Indian and Chinese leaders would meet on the sidelines of the summit in Hamburg.
•Earlier on Thursday, news reports from Beijing said the meeting would not be possible as the “atmosphere was not right.”
Imposes condition
•Mr. Geng said: “India can immediately withdraw the border troops to the Indian side of the boundary to uphold the peace/tranquillity of the China and India border areas,” as a “pre-condition for essential peace talks.”
•He also warned at a daily news briefing in Beijing that India must pull back its forces to its side of the border in order “to avoid there being an even more serious situation, creating even more serious consequences.”
•The ongoing tension erupted over Chinese construction in the Doklam area at the India-Bhutan-China tri-junction.
•Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi last met in Astana on June 9 during the summit of the SCO. where Mr. Xi had described the Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra as a positive aspect of ties.
•However, following the Doklam row the pilgrimage on the Sikkim route was stopped as the Chinese refused to allow Indian pilgrims to use the Nathu La pass.
Defence experts call for a political solution
Warn that upping the ante will not serve strategic interests of either India or China, and press for defusing tension
•With India-China relations in fresh turmoil, former military officers and diplomats who have dealt with the communist neighbour have said that New Delhi should address the border standoff with Beijing at a political level.
•The suggestion from experts comes in the wake of China’s statement that the situation was not conducive for a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Germany.
•A former senior official of the Defence Ministry pointed out that the present situation had much in common with the tense standoff in 2013 in Ladakh, when both sides put up tents and the impasse stretched into weeks.
•“We were able to resolve it peacefully because our National Security Adviser and China’s Special Representative engaged with each other,” he said, suggesting that the present dispute called for a high-level political intervention.
•According to available indications, both sides have engaged at the field commander level, as well as through the Indian embassy in Beijing, over the Sikkim standoff, which began on June 16.
Charges, counters
•“The two sides have levelled allegations and counter-allegations at the political level. So any meaningful dialogue will have to commence at the political level,” former Army Chief Gen. Bikram Singh told The Hindu .
•“Since the Special Representatives are already in dialogue as per the existing mechanisms, it would be prudent to have the initiation of this process at their level.”
•Gen. Singh cautioned that upping the ante will not be in the strategic interests of either country. “Therefore, without compromising our stated position, we should explore options for expeditiously defusing the situation,” the former army chief said.
•He pointed out that the Indian position is based on the understanding of 2012, whereby any discussion on the tri-junction has to be done in consultation with the third country.
•The Indian Army’s support of RGB (Royal Bhutan Army) is in conformity with this special relationship that the two countries and their armies enjoy.
•Playing down the present standoff, former Army Chief Gen. VP Malik said that the media on both sides have given it undue prominence.
‘Road is the problem’
•Gen. Malik, who was the Army Chief during the 1999 Kargil conflict with Pakistan, said the problem was due to the road construction activity begun by the Chinese.
•“The grazing grounds have always been there. Their grazers have been coming in and both sides have been observing each other. Claims have been there for a long time. The problem is the road,” he said. The road under construction is not desirable from India’s point of view as it would give the Chinese’s heavier vehicles access to the southern most edge of the Chumbi valley, Gen. Malik pointed out.
•China analyst Lt Gen SL Narasimhan (retd) pointed out that both sides should inform the other about any impending construction activity through the border personnel meetings, flag meetings, or the hotline, as has been the practice.
•Lt Gen Narasimhan added that, in the meantime, India should step up her surveillance capabilities, build infrastructure in the border areas, and further develop the capabilities to handle any such incidents in the future.
Jobs secured on fake caste certificates invalid, says SC
Disagrees with judgment of Bombay High Court in 2014
•Persons who secured government employment and got academic admissions under reserved categories with the help of forged caste certificates can have their jobs and admission declared invalid, the Supreme Court held on Thursday.
No protection, says court
•A Bench of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud disagreed with a Bombay High Court decision in 2014 that public servants who got their jobs using fake caste certificates and have spent considerable time in service can be afforded protection.
•The High Court had said that such persons could be allowed to keep their jobs.
•The verdict came on a batch of petitions, including the one filed by the Maharashtra government against the High Court’s December 2014 judgment.
•The Supreme Court, however, said the findings of its verdict would not be made applicable with retrospective effect.
•The three-judge Bench of the High Court had framed two questions: “Whether the relief of protection of service after invalidation of the caste claim can be granted by the High Court” on the basis of a 2012 apex court judgment; if the answer is ‘yes,’ then can such relief of protection of service be granted to them whose cases have already been rejected by it. The High Court had answered the first question in the affirmative and held that mere invalidation of caste certificate would not lead to cessation of service.
•“Mere invalidation of the caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee would not entail the consequences of withdrawal of benefits or discharge from the employment or cancellation of appointments that have become final,” the HC had concluded.
•There cannot be any straitjacket formula laid down either to refuse or grant protection in the employment either at the initial stage or at the promotional stage, it had said. The approach has to be practical and pragmatic rather than technical and pedantic keeping in view the object and purpose of the Constitution in providing the benefits and concessions to a particular category of backward class, the High Court had observed.
•The government had informed the Lok Sabha in March that 1,832 appointments were allegedly secured on the basis of fake caste certificates.
SC questions EC reluctance to use VVPAT
•The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Election Commission on its reluctance to use voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) units with electronic voting machines for the Gujarat Assembly polls in 2017, warning the poll panel against making excuses and compelling the court to force its hand.
•When counsel of the panel replied that not all the 87,000 are functional and some have “glitches”, Justice Khehar said the argument sounded like an excuse. VVPAT concept would result in printed receipts of what party the EVM machine has registered a vote for.
Centre doing ‘all it can’ to help farmers
Tells Supreme Court that NITI Ayog will suggest a strategy to address concerns over farmer suicides
•The Centre told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the increasing incidence of suicide by distressed farmers was a “terrible tragedy” and it was doing “all in its powers” to tide over the agrarian crisis.
•Appearing before a Bench of Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and D.Y. Chandrachud, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal painstakingly detailed a slew of measures and schemes the government had either proposed or launched to resolve the economic distress of farmers. He submitted that the NITI Aayog was addressing the issue of farmers’ suicides.
Poor implementation
•The petitioner, Citizens Resource and Action Initiative represented by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, said the schemes looked good on paper, but their implementation on the ground was poor. However, the court agreed with Mr. Venugopal that the “issue is serious and cannot be dealt with overnight.” It was necessary to give the government some time to implement its welfare schemes, which ranged from crop insurance to agricultural credit and rescheduling of loans in case of crop failure.
•The court gave the government a six-month window to work its schemes before re-visiting the issue at the next hearing.
•The government had asked the court for at least a year to fully implement the welfare schemes and and gauge their impact.
•The court, in its orders, recorded the government’s submissions that 5.34 crore farmers, constituting 40%, had already been covered by the welfare schemes and work was on to enhance the figure to 50% by 2018-19. Thirty per cent of the crops too were secured.
•Mr. Venugopal said crop insurance schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojan had been instituted from the Kharif season of 2016, and was a “huge improvement over the previous schemes [National Agriculture Insurance scheme]” of the past. All farmers who avail themselves of crop loans were automatically covered under this scheme and the premium amount was deducted from their loan amounts. Insurance cover was provided for all stages of the crop cycle.
Farmers’ income
•Mr. Venugopal said efforts were on to bring more farmers into the institutional fold by ensuring availability of crop loans through commercial, cooperative and regional rural banks. “The target for agricultural credit is Rs. 10 lakh crore in 2017-18. The government plans to double farmers’ income by 2022,” the Attorney General submitted.
•ATM-enabled Kisan Credit cards had been introduced to enable farmers to purchase raw materials and draw cash.
•RBI had allowed banks to take a lenient view on rescheduling of loans if the crop loss was more than 33%. He said the government ultimately intended to “create a single unified market for the country.”
Market channels
•The government said it was drafting a Model Act called ‘State/UT Agricultural Produce and Livestock Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act of 2017’ to ensure multiple market channels and prevent monopolies.
•The Attorney General detailed other programmes like National Food Security Mission, National Mission for Oilseed and Oil Palm, Mission of Integrated Development for Horticulture, National Mission on Agricultural Extension and Technology.
‘GST ain’t easy, but appeals to investors’
Businesses have concerns, but political opposition is ‘churlish,’ says UKIBC
•India’s new Goods and Services Tax system is not simple as it involves filling up of complex forms and businesses still have some concerns about its operational nuances — but it still makes the country a more attractive place for foreign investors to do business, the U.K. India Business Council (UKIBC) said.
•“Teething issues” are bound to come up in a new taxation system, but the political opposition to GST is “inaccurate” and “churlish,” the Council’s CEO Richard Heald has said in a newsletter to the Council’s members, conceding that the Council itself had to “go through a steep learning process” to get familiar with GST.
•“Despite a temporary demonetisation-related blip in GDP, India continues to march forward with its own reform agenda. I have been watching the fanfare with which GST has just been officially rolled out across India (and) met with much enthusiasm by most of the population as well as the vast majority of business,” Mr. Heald said.
•“There is political noise with opposition parties describing it as the ‘BJP’s tax terrorism.’ This sounds churlish and inaccurate bearing in mind the Ministry of Finance and the GST Council have indicated that there will be flexibility in implementation in the early stages,” the UKIBC CEO commented.
•“Of course, it is not a “simple tax” as we would know it with five slabs of tax depending on the product and the amount of form filling is complex – at least initially,” he admitted, but added that conversations with senior Indian officials suggest the introduction of the tax should be seen as ‘an evolutionary process.’
Single market
•Terming the GST as a significant steps towards a single market for goods and services for “a country as complex as” India, Mr. Heald expected economic benefits to accrue in time. “It is good for India, and it is good for U.K. businesses, which can now look at India as an even more attractive place to do business in.”
•The UKIBC, however, flagged some residual concerns that could pose huge problems for companies unless they have very robust IT systems in place.
Mr. Modi in Israel
He affirms special ties, underplays historical stress India has given to the Palestine issue
•While welcoming Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Tel Aviv, his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, said his country had awaited the visit for “seventy years”. Since the birth in 1948 of Israel, whose admission to the UN India subsequently opposed, Israeli leaders had always sought full diplomatic ties. And once the Narasimha Rao government established full diplomatic ties in 1992, Israel pushed for full acknowledgement of bilateral relations on the international stage. As a result, the significance of Mr. Modi’s visit to Israel, as the first Indian Prime Minister there, was the trip itself. This was reflected in the camaraderie between the two Prime Ministers, who spent practically every waking moment together. The agreements signed during the visit, on water, agriculture, space and science and technology, are important no doubt, but not path-breaking. They simply underscore ongoing cooperation in such fields — as well as in the defence sector, India being one of the biggest buyers of Israeli military equipment. Cooperation on cybersecurity issues, discussed by officials during Mr. Modi’s visit, constitutes a breakthrough of sorts, given that Israel tends to limit cooperation in this area to a few countries. A decision was announced to upgrade ties to a strategic partnership, signalling a final step to total normalisation of relations. Perhaps this is why Mr. Modi’s address to Israelis of Indian origin in Tel Aviv, with a promise to address visa issues and improve air connectivity, had an emotional pitch different from his meetings with the diaspora elsewhere in the world.
•However, the best friendships are judged not just by bilateral bonhomie, but by the ability to discuss uncomfortable issues. With Mr. Modi’s visit India has, for all purposes, de-hyphenated its ties with Israel and Palestine, something Israel has always wanted. In a clear repudiation of the Indian practice of keeping Palestinian leaders prominently in the loop, Mr. Modi made a point of not visiting the Occupied Territories. The departure was more prominent in the joint statement, that contained a short paragraph on the “Israel-Palestine” peace process, with no reference to UN resolutions, the two-state solution, or even the need to resume talks, that Mr. Modi had spoken of during the visit of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to India just a couple of months ago. It would have been more in keeping with India’s stature on the international stage, and its particular leverage with all players in West Asia especially on Palestine, had Mr. Modi made a visible attempt to extract from Israel a commitment to the peace process. India’s evolving ties with Israel no doubt are based on pragmatism and the desire to eschew hypocrisy — but Mr. Modi has infused his visit with a symbolism and substance that could well mark a point of departure in India’s moral support to the Palestinian cause. By way of comparison, U.S. President Donald Trump visited Palestine too when he went to Israel in May.
Thinking multilateral
India has sent conflicting signals through its approach to three recent events
•The last two months have been an eventful period in India’s foreign policy engagements. The culmination of three events — One Belt, One road (OBOR)/Belt and Road Forum (BRF), Shangri-La Dialogue and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meet — saw high-level exchanges among countries of the Asia-Pacific region. However, India’s different responses to the three events point to complexities that might hinder its approach.
•The first event, the BRF held in Beijing, was attended by 29 heads of states, more than 100 senior government officials and 70 international organisations. New Delhi, critical of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), chose not to attend. It thus sent a strong political signal of its discomfiture to the leaderships of both China and Pakistan.
•When it comes to the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, which brings together Defence Ministers and other high-level officials from 28 nations in the Asia-Pacific, India has attended 12 out of 16 meets since its inception in 2002. This year though, India was conspicuous by its absence, which was due to a combination of factors — late confirmation from New Delhi’s end and a ‘programme oversight’ by the organisers. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, also additionally holding the portfolio of defence, was hard-pressed for time and Minister of State Subhash Bhamre was deputed to head the Indian delegation. India decided to pull out when he was told to attend one of the ‘plenary sessions’ and not given a speaking role at the main session.
•It missed out on an important avenue to put across its views due to the absence of a full-time Defence Minister. That said, New Delhi could have sent a suitable delegation instead as was done by China and Pakistan. Chinese delegation, led by Lt. Gen. Le Hei, raised several issues like U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, navigation in the South China Sea and Korean peninsula nuclear issue. On a related note, India is working on its own version of multilateral dialogue forums. The ‘Raisina Dialogue’ and ‘Gateway of India Dialogue’ have celebrated two successful editions. India may be keen not to give too much importance to other similar forums.
•The third engagement was at the SCO, which India and Pakistan joined on June 9 after having remained observer states for several years. Speaking at the summit in Astana, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire for enhanced connectivity and trade exchanges and also pledged his commitment in the collective fight against terrorism. The SCO will be India’s wedge to make inroads into Central Asia.
•The Indian government has invested significant diplomatic capital in bilateral engagements. However, regional multilateral engagements are equally important, given the commonality of threats and the Indian leadership should actively participate in them. They also provide avenues for bilateral discussions on the sidelines. Until any platform disregards India’s ‘core interests’, New Delhi should consider attending similar high-level engagements in the future.
Postscript to the proxy war
Tensions threaten to spiral between the U.S. and Iran ahead of the coming battle for southern Syria
•On June 18, a U.S. warplane shot down a Syrian regime jet after it bombed American-backed rebels in northern Syria — the first time the U.S. has downed a Syrian warplane since the start of the country’s civil war in 2011. Two days later, the Pentagon announced it had shot down an Iranian-made drone in the country’s south-east, where American personnel have been training anti-Islamic State fighters, and where a complex geopolitical battle is unfolding.
•Since President Donald Trump took office, the U.S. military has struck the Syrian regime or its allies at least five times. Even if the Pentagon may not want to directly engage Syrian forces, or their Russian and Iranian-backed allies, there’s a danger of accidental escalation, especially as various forces continue to converge on eastern and southern Syria to reclaim strategic territory from the Islamic State (IS).
•Mr. Trump’s willingness to use military force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his chief supporters risks sparking a widening confrontation, while distracting from what Mr. Trump insists is his top priority: defeating the IS in both Iraq and Syria. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump campaigned on a pledge to avoid direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict. Today, he has become a major player in a regional proxy war that could determine West Asia’s dynamics for decades.
•The Syrian conflict has expanded into a war that involves regional and world powers — including the U.S., Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar — whose interests sometimes overlap, but at other times lead to multiple confrontations and uncomfortable alliances. Under the Obama administration, U.S. policy in Syria was focused on containing the IS, largely ignoring Mr. Assad, and keeping American allies from fighting each other.
The Iran factor
•The dangers are particularly acute when it comes to Iran, which made dramatic battlefield moves of its own last month when it launched several missiles from inside Iran against IS targets in eastern Syria. Officially, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said the volley of missiles fired at Deir al-Zour province was a response to a pair of attacks by IS militants in Tehran on June 7, the first time that the terrorist group had struck inside Iran.
•After shooting down the Syrian jet, the Pentagon insisted it would protect the Syrian rebels it has been training and arming for more than a year to launch the assault on the IS in Raqqa, capital of its self-proclaimed caliphate. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat,” the U.S. statement said. And foremost among those threats, in the eyes of the Trump administration, is Iran. While Mr. Trump has changed his mind on a number of foreign policy questions since taking office, he has been consistent in his belief that Iran poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests in West Asia.
•Nowhere is Iran projecting its regional power more extensively than Syria. Since the war started, Tehran has sent billions of dollars in aid and thousands of troops and Shiite volunteers to support Mr. Assad’s men. Over the past two years, Russia and Iran, along with Hezbollah and several Iraqi Shiite militias, helped the Syrian President consolidate control and regain territory he lost to Syrian rebels and foreign jihadists. In December, with intensive Russian airstrikes and Iranian ground support, his forces recaptured the rebel-held sections of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. It was Mr. Assad’s biggest victory since the war began. The next prize for the Syria government and its allies is the eastern province of Deir al-Zour, home to the country’s modest oilfields. This desert expanse includes several border crossings between Syria, Iraq and Jordan — and the strategic highway connecting Damascus and Baghdad.
•In recent weeks, Syrian troops, along with Hezbollah and other Shiite militias, have been moving to consolidate control over the area and to connect with Iranian-backed militias that are fighting to dislodge the IS from the Iraqi side of the border.
•The Trump administration is worried that with these gains, Iran and its allies will carve out a “Shiite crescent” extending from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, and into Lebanon, where Hezbollah is the most powerful political and military force. Such a prospect looms large not only for the U.S. administration, but also its allies in the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia.
•Since taking office, Mr. Trump and his top advisers have shifted their rhetoric to reflect more explicit support for Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Arab allies, and, in turn, a harsher view of Iran. The shift was cemented during Mr. Trump’s visit in May to the kingdom, which he chose as the first stop on his maiden overseas trip as President. Like his Saudi hosts, Mr. Trump framed the problems of West Asia as due solely to Iran’s belligerence and terrorism by Islamist extremist groups, despite the kingdom’s destabilising activities across the region, including its ongoing catastrophic war in Yemen and its recent blockade of Qatar.
•Meanwhile, Iranian officials are growing increasingly frustrated at the Trump administration’s constant attacks on the July 2015 agreement Tehran signed with the U.S. and five other world powers to limit its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.
•While Washington is eager to portray its latest actions in Syria as defensive measures, Mr. Assad’s regime and its Iranian allies view them as an aggression, noting that the Pentagon shot down a Syrian jet in Syrian airspace.
•And by flexing their military reach in Syria with a missile launch, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and other regime hardliners risk inflaming more tension with the Trump administration — tension that could boil over in the coming war for dominance of southern Syria.
•There is a danger that one of the many players in this conflict could overreach and provoke a new confrontation that spirals out of control.
Should we grow GM crops?
We’ve moved from dismal regulation of Bt cotton to outright delinquency in bid to commercialise HT mustard
•To hide her nakedness, India has borrowed a ‘fig leaf’ from U.S. regulation of genetically modified orgamisms (GMOs), i.e. in the non-regulation of these novel laboratory organisms. The U.S. invented GMOs and commercialised them despite serious safety concerns expressed by government scientists.
Myths and realities
•GMOs carry risks of ‘unintended’ effects and toxicity, which confront us with a double problem: scientists don’t know what to look for, and health impacts become apparent only in the long term, such as cancer. California reaffirmed last month, despite GM behemoth Monsanto’s best efforts, that its glyphosate, considered the safest herbicide, will be included in a list of chemicals labelled as “cancer-causing” (following the categorisation of glyphosate by the World Health Organization as a “probable carcinogen”).
•There is serious concern that Monsanto may have known for 30 years that glyphosate is an endocrine (hormone) disruptor; no regulatory agency anywhere regulates for endocrine disruption despite overwhelming evidence from Argentina of horrendous birth defects because of glyphosate used in herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybeans. In this context, Bayer’s glufosinate, the herbicide linked with Indian HT mustard, is an acknowledged neurotoxin banned in the EU. The Supreme Court-appointed technical expert committee recommended a ban on any HT crop in India for this among several other reasons.
•The myths that have sustained the propaganda of a safe and highly productive GM crop technology for two decades — that it “will feed the world” — are fast dissolving. The current stable of GMOs comprises just two products, Bt (e.g. Bt cotton) and HT crops (HT mustard), and they account for nearly 99% of GMOs planted worldwide. Both, on empirical evidence (including India’s Bt cotton), are proven unsustainable technologies. There are promises of GMOs with traits for disease, drought etc., but these are complex, multi-gene traits and remain futuristic. What is abundantly clear is that traditional breeding outperforms GMOs hands down.
Going against evidence
•Globally and in India, the conflict of interest is pernicious: our regulatory institutions/ministries are funders, promoters, developers and regulators, a fine blend of multitasking. There is neither independence nor rigour. Add to this the serious lack of expertise in risk assessment, and we are sitting on an agri-biosecurity powder keg. These matters are fully attested to in four official Government of India reports. We have moved from dismal regulation in Bt cotton in 2002 to outright delinquency evident in the current ‘plot’ to commercialise HT mustard. The regulation is subterranean, unconstitutional and also in contempt of Supreme Court orders pertaining to Bt brinjal/mustard.
•The HT mustard field trials, which were accessed under the Right to Information Act, are a revelation of regulatory shambles. This hybrid-making HT mustard, on the government’s own admission in the Supreme Court, has not out-yielded our best non-GMO hybrids and varieties. Yet this is the notion sung in high decibels in an ever-increasing crescendo by the media.
•We must learn from the lessons of the history of hazardous technologies, DDT, asbestos, etc. But GMOs, critically, stand apart from these. GMOs are self-replicating organisms and genetic contamination of the environment, of non-GM crops and wild species through gene flow is certain: it cannot be contained, reversed, remedied or quantified. Our seed stock will also be contaminated at the molecular level. Any toxicity that there is will remain in perpetuity. The traits for disease, saline and drought resistance, yield, etc. are found in nature, not biotech labs. We must maintain India’s still-rich genetic diversity for the future of our agriculture.
