Ndu nationalists assert power in Modi’s India

eeking more levero, Rao found in the e RSS an opportunicompany’s dominaarket. It was against he dispatched senior P Sateesh Kumar, a l genetics, to Monadquarters in 2015. Rao’s company, Ltd, was behind on o Monsanto and on up, by Monsanto’s than $20 million in American investor, LP, was waiting for rough. Nonetheless, a corner conference floor and conveyed a reduction in royallivered its answer hat wasn’t going to

eft the meeting on e paused. He told the Monsanto and its that there would be refusing Rao a diso a letter Monsanto ment and which was ers. Kumar says he nguage. n which he let loose Rao pointed out that r “Risk Factors” in for his company, of more than 80 percent ossibility of his conto being disrupted. anto made a mistake he upper hand. ed to answer quesf the RSS in Rao’s duct our business in rent and respectful nue to engage with the spectrum,” the

ked in the dispute by yer AG, which is in ng the seed company so has the support of other seed heavyDow Chemical Co . In August, these a news conference d for transparency in tion and licensing. hey warned, would estment in India. man referred queries onsanto to the RSS e Bharatiya Kisan ident, a man named said the union was who had approached ut Monsanto’s seed

for all of us to unite ainst Monsanto. No e, be it Rao or the” elkar told Reuters. g with him because he is fighting a battle that is meant for greater good.”

Monsanto and Rao are now locked in a series of government complaints, litigation and arbitration.

Citing an Indian law that excludes seeds from being patented, Rao says Monsanto should never have been allowed to collect royalties after an initial payment to use its technology. Or, at the very least, he adds, prices should have been set by the government.

The technology currently licensed out by Monsanto is known as Bollgard II. The company received a patent in 2009 in India for Bollgard II’s ability to modify cotton seeds to include a microbe called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which fortifies cotton plants against bollworms.

Monsanto says Rao and a small group of other seed companies demanding a reduction in royalties are simply trying to renege on contracts and money owed. Dhiraj Pant, who oversees tech development for Monsanto across Asia, said it would have been preferable if the Indian seed companies had not pushed for the government to step in. “It is unfortunate that these disputing companies sought policy interventions to address a bilateral matter,” said Pant.

The RSS, which has its own farmer and labour unions, was formed in 1925 to campaign against British colonial rule. It seeks to instill a nationalist vision of India as a Hindu nation, despite large minority populations that include Muslims and Christians.

The group nurtured Modi’s rise – in his early days in the RSS he cleaned floors at a local chapter office. And the RSS helped form the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

But Modi and his RSS backers have differing views about the role of foreign multinationals. In his 13 years as chief minister of the western state of Gujarat, Modi was an early supporter of genetically modified cotton. His administration there allowed farmers to plant Monsanto-modified seeds, known as Bt cotton, before the technology received official approval in New Delhi.

His approach contradicted the RSS stance against multinationals operating in the agricultural sector, particularly when it comes to genetically modified crops.

The tension simmered for years. After Modi’s election in 2014, the RSS began its push. A senior leader in the RSS farmers’ union, a man named Mohini Mohan Mishra, began holding study sessions with leaders in the ruling party and the Modi administration to argue against genetically modified crops. One of Mishra’s presentation slides pointed to the rise in popularity of organic food in the West.

Another slide said of Monsanto: “It created seed monopoly, a threat to seed sovereignty.”

Monsanto’s mistake was that it did not approach the RSS to plead its case, said Mishra in an interview at his office in central Delhi, which has peeling paint, dirty rugs and, in summer months, mosquitoes buzzing inside.

“It was the overconfidence of Monsanto that has destroyed their chances to do business in India,” said Mishra. “They failed to study and understand the RSS.”

Rao, meanwhile, was lobbying Modi’s government. Sometime in 2015, he met with Singh, the agriculture minister and RSS member.

The powerbrokers and officials of the Congress party that ruled India for most of its independent history tended to espouse secular ideology in clipped English accents that hinted at elite schooling at home and abroad. The RSS leadership speaks of rural roots and the virtues of the homegrown.

Singh is cut from that cloth. At the beginning of one interview he paused to fold a small wad of snuff in his left cheek as an attendant brought a metal spittoon. He was not hard to convince that Monsanto was in the wrong, said Rao.

“The truth is that Monsanto was dominating the market, and that is not good for India’s farming practices,” said Singh. “We should have our own seeds to compete with them.”

After Monsanto declared Rao’s company in breach of payment obligations and terminated its contract in November 2015, Singh’s agriculture ministry moved swiftly.

The next month, the ministry established a panel to fix the price of genetically modified cotton seeds and the royalties Monsanto was allowed to collect.