DR. SUMAN SAHAI’S RESPONSE TO LETTER SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY DR DEEPAK PENTAL, DR SUDHIR SOPORY AND DR SK RAINA.

Ref M- 13033/1/2006-E&F

The Pental, Sopory, Raina letter was written in support of a letter sent by C Kameswar Rao urging that they reject the recommendations of the Planning Commission Task Force on Biodiversity and Genetically Modified Organisms.

  1. The letter written by Dr Pental, Dr Sopory and Dr Raina dissociating themselves from the recommendations made by the Planning Commission Task Force on Biodiversity and Genetically Modified Organisms, contains factual inaccuracies.

  1. The remarks from the above mentioned members of the Task Force were communicated to the Planning Commission five months after the final draft report was sent to them for comments. They did not communicate their reactions/remarks to the Chairperson of the Task Force, Dr Suman Sahai.

  1. It is incorrect to state that no formal meetings were held. A formal meeting was held on 14 September, 2006 at the India International Centre, New Delhi. After the first meeting, members of the TF said that since everyone already carries heavy workloads, it would be better to have discussions on the email and share submissions and comments electronically. This would save time wasted in traveling back and forth for meetings. Electronic consultations are preferred wherever possible, not only to minimize cost but also to minimize the carbon foot print, and environmental damage resulting from air and other travel.

  1. None of the above mentioned responded when dates were being finalized for the meeting, nor did they attend the meeting.

  1. The Task Force report clearly states that it was prepared on the basis of inputs provided by Dr. Bala Ravi, Sri Dinesh Abrol, Dr. Ilse Koller Roleffson. Dr. Rajeswari Raina, Dr. Sagari Ramdas, Dr. S K Raina and Dr. Suman Sahai.  Except for Dr SK Raina, , who sent one contribution for the report, the other two are not identified as authors of the TF report.

  1. Dr SK Raina contributed one submission to the TF, Dr Sudhir Sopory asked to be excused from the TF meetings due to personal work in the US and apologized for not contributing ‘his bit’. Dr Pental never contributed anything at all, nor responded to any submissions or drafts.

  1. The above mentioned have been the recipients of all the minutes, submissions and drafts that were circulated to TF members from time to time. No comments or suggestions were ever sent by them. No comments were forthcoming on the final draft report either, that was circulated on November 28, 2006 .

  1. It is noteworthy that the above mentioned, having declined/ failed to engage with the TF discussions during the entire duration of the TF consultations, have come out to distance themselves from the TF recommendations five months after the final draft report was sent to them.

  1. It is also noteworthy that the above-mentioned have elected to respond to the TF report in the manner that they have, after being urged ‘to protest’ by a certain Prof C. Kameshwar Rao, of the Bangalore based “Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education”, against the TF recommendations.

  1. Prof C. Kameshwar Rao’s letter urging protest against the TF recommendations was forwarded to Dr Sahai by the Planning Commission. Interestingly, Prof C. Kameshwar Rao did not mark his  round mail to the Task Force chairperson, against whom he has raised objections in rather intemperate language.

  1. Prof C. Kameshwar Rao’s association with the biotechnology industry and the lobby promoting GM technology in India , is well known. Equally well known are his one-sided views on the subject and his intolerance of anything critical of Agbiotechnology.

  1.  Prof C. Kameshwar Rao’s allegations against the Task Force Chairperson are malicious and defamatory in nature and constitute a personal attack on the TF Chairperson.

  1. The suggestion that the TF force report is an official document that has to be kept secret and therefore should not feature on a private website is absurd and flies in the face of all the steps taken by the government in recent years to bring about transparency and good governance. The Right to Information Act in fact grants specific rights to the citizen to access almost all information in the government domain.

  1. The conditions of the Task Force and my functioning as its Chairperson did not contain any information on keeping the contents of the report confidential. Had this been the case, I would have declined to accept the Chairperson’s position.

Dr Suman Sahai