Senior ministers in the UPA government have been talking in different voices on Bt Brinjal.

Kapil Sibal, Prithviraj Chavan and Sharad Pawar have publicly stated that, since the GEAC has given clearance for the genetically modified crop, a political decision to the contrary is unwarranted. Their argument, broadly, is that science is supreme in such matters. In its extreme, some supporters of this camp have equated viewpoints critical of Bt to being unscientific and anti-technology.

Congress party’s official position is that more caution should be exercised and more studies should be conducted before Bt Brinjal enters our fields and plate – environment minister Jairam Ramesh anticipated this political thinking and probably acted on cue, in declaring an indefinite moratorium on it. Opponents of Bt Brinjal are celebrating.

The argument that science is supreme is an extremely flawed one. And it’s anti-democratic. In a democracy, the people may choose not to adapt a technology that scientists may insist is beneficial. That’s a matter of choice. Science and technology are not value-neutral; the same technology may impact different people differently.

The opposition to Bt Brinjal is also not value-neutral; and we need to distinguish between different types of resistances. A good part of anti-Bt arguments have been based on science. For instance, how it may affect biodiversity and what health impact it may have on consumers. These are questions that may never be fully answered, but must be explored in details.

But India has streams of politics, which have made rejection of technology an ideology. The Left would never admit that, but it has rejected technology in agriculture and industry, arguing that it would replace human labour. The Socialists have argued similarly, with an additional point that technology would disrupt the village life that they so romanticised. The Right, particularly the RSS, has opposed technology because of its foreign origins and its ability to disrupt native culture. It’s no coincidence that they are all together in opposing Bt.

Proponents of Bt must resist the temptation to make that an ideology. Unconditionally supporting Bt cannot be the benchmark for one’s scientific temper or progressive outlook. They should believe in science by all means; but they should also build a political constituency for science.