Is Nagaland standing at a critical juncture, facing a proposition that looks to threaten and unravel generations of sustainable farming and indigenous heritage through the potential introduction of genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton? On 6 August 2024, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare issued a press release defending the success of Bt cotton in India. It claimed that genetically modified (GM) cotton improved yields, reduced pesticide use, and boosted farmer incomes, citing studies from states like Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. This narrative is now quietly being used to justify the introduction of Bt and BG varieties of cotton into Nagaland. But the story on the ground—and in India’s cotton belts—is far more complex, revealing a warning, not a model.
For a state like Nagaland, where agriculture is intricately tied to community land ownership, ecological balance, and cultural identity, adopting genetically modified cotton is a dangerous proposition. It risks undoing not just sustainable farming systems, but the very fabric of our indigenous cotton heritage.
India’s Bt Cotton experience: A warning, not a model
Bt cotton was introduced in India in 2002 with the promise of controlling bollworm infestation and reducing chemical pesticide use. This genetically modified cotton contains a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which produces a protein toxic to certain insect pests. Yet over time, this promise has unraveled:
- Pest resistance has returned: Secondary pests such as whiteflies and mealybugs have emerged, pushing pesticide usage back up , trapping farmers in the same costly chemical cycles they sought to escape.
- Yields have stagnated: Despite Bt adoption across 96% of India’s cotton acreage, national average yields remain a dismal 443 kg/ha—far below countries like Australia, which average over 1500 kg/ha, clearly demonstrating the unfulfilled promise of sustained yield increases.
- Seed costs and debt: Bt cotton seeds are expensive and non-reusable. Farmers must buy them anew each season, leading to increased financial pressure. In rainfed areas like Vidarbha, this has been directly linked to agrarian distress and farmer suicides.
- Corporate control over seeds: Bt seeds are proprietary, sold by multinational corporations. This has eroded farmers’ seed sovereignty and traditional knowledge systems.
- Environmental concerns: Field studies have indicated that Bt toxins can alter soil microbial activity and reduce long-term fertility, especially in fragile hill ecosystems.
These issues are not theoretical. They are structural failures of a technology unsuited to the diverse, decentralized realities of Indian farming. For Nagaland to adopt this model now would be to ignore two decades of warning signs.
Nagaland’s Indigenous Cotton: A Quiet Strength, An Untapped Future
A 2023 baseline study by NEIDA, covering over 300 households in 8 districts, offers an alternative vision—rooted not in genetic modification, but in genetic memory. Cotton has been grown in Nagaland for generations, mostly by women, using heirloom, non-hybrid seeds well adapted to the region’s rainfed conditions.
Key findings include: - 94.98% of cotton is still grown from heirloom seeds, preserved across generations.
- 100% pesticide-free cultivation, done without synthetic fertilizers.
- Strong local interest: 85% of farmers surveyed expressed willingness to revive cotton cultivation if support is provided.
- Hand-spun cotton yarn fetches high prices in niche markets—up to Rs. 2600 per kg for perennial varieties, offering significant livelihood potential.
Despite this vibrant potential, no formal government training or extension services on cotton cultivation, pest management, or ginning/spinning have been provided in the surveyed regions. This is not a forgotten past; it is an untapped future.
Why Bt Cotton is ill-suited to Nagaland
- Ecological fragility: Nagaland’s hills and shifting cultivation systems support biodiversity and soil resilience. Introducing high-input monoculture crops like Bt cotton would disrupt this balance. The risk of soil degradation and water pollution is real and irreversible.
- Customary land tenure: Land in Nagaland is communally owned and governed by customary law. The legal and ethical complications arising from GM crop contamination—especially with patented seeds—could generate serious disputes within and between communities.
- Cultural erosion: Cotton in Nagaland isn’t merely a crop; it is woven into the very fabric of our identity, integral to traditional weaving, cultural expressions, and ancestral craft. The introduction of Bt cotton, with its corporate-controlled seeds and centralized processing, risks severing this profound connection, replacing a vibrant, indigenous value chain with a sterile, external one.
- Lack of institutional capacity: As the NEIDA survey found, knowledge of pest control, nutrient management, and optimal cultivation practices is minimal among existing cotton growers. Pushing GM crops into such a context without robust extension systems risks crop failure and farmer frustration.
A smarter, locally grounded path forward
Instead of blindly adopting a flawed model, Nagaland can forge a bolder, locally grounded path towards a thriving cotton economy, one that honours our heritage and ensures long-term sustainability:
- Document and invest in indigenous cotton varieties, particularly Gossypium arboreum, which is better suited to rainfed, low-input farming.
- Establish community seed banks to protect and propagate local genetic resources. Our communities have already proven the viability of this idea, and these must be adopted and supported.
- Provide training and extension support in sustainable cultivation, pest management, and value addition (e.g., spinning, weaving, dyeing). Weaver groups in Nagaland are already doing so much in weaving and dyeing from other natural fabrics, and they need support in what they do.
- Link local cotton producers to niche ethical markets, including sustainable fashion and fair-trade networks.
- Encourage industry actors to support local value chains, not just raw material extraction.
Nagaland does not need Bt cotton to build a thriving cotton economy. It already has the building blocks—it just needs the vision and support to scale them. Furthermore, the state government should actively advocate for policies that prioritize and incentivize indigenous cotton cultivation at both state and national levels.
Conclusion
The future of cotton in Nagaland should not be dictated by a national press release, corporate interest, or one-size-fits-all schemes. It must be shaped by our land, our people, and our long-term ecological security. Bt cotton may have a place elsewhere. But in Nagaland—where agriculture is still community-driven, culturally rooted, and ecologically complex—it simply does not belong. Let us invest in what is ours and grow cotton that grows with our people. Our heritage is our strength; let us cultivate it.
Amba Jamir,
Policy Analyst & Sustainable Development Expert
The author is a sustainable development expert who has worked extensively in Northeast India on indigenous agriculture, biodiversity, and community-based economic systems.