: Isn't that the farmer's choice--whether to try to attain greater
: yields at greater risk? Or is the farmer to be told what to do by the
: wise leader?
When a farmer is indebted to a local loan shark, issues of individual choice and risk are remote concepts. Peasant suicides are a complex socio-economic phenomenon. You should note that several of the peasants who tried to kill themselves by drinking their pesticides actually survived, indicating that they were victims of fraud as much as they were bad "risk managers."
Given the ways in which pesticides are diluted and overused/misapplied, I think it is appropriate for there to be a debate on whether or not the state should allow bio-technology. Bio-tech crops may produce greater yeilds, but without the creation of "bio-refuges" insects will develop a resistance to such crops. If the state is not confident that it can monitor compliance the application of the technology, it should not allow that technology as the ultimate consequences could be devestating for the entire society.
As the Indian government cannot even prevent the fraudulent sale of diluted pesticides, I wonder whether it is ready to regulate biotech agriculture. Moreover, as the US failed to prevent Starlink corn from entering the human food supply, I wonder if any state can properly monitor the application of this technology.
And yes, it is true that India produces a surplus. Even Borlaug's letter concedes that India's buffer grain stocks are overflowing. Why is that such an astonishing fact for you? The fact that so much of India's population is still hungry only strengthens Conrad's argument that there is a distribution problem.
Vikash Yadav