In the expansive fields of Punjab, Karnataka, and Bihar, the Indian farmer, resilient and deeply rooted in tradition, has once again turned to maize. As the golden crop flutters beneath the monsoon skies, its acreage has reached a new high. A total of 84.3 lakh hectares were covered during the kharif 2024 season, and maize cultivation has touched 120.17 lakh hectares for the year 24–25. This is nearly double what it was a decade ago. As India walks the path of agricultural self-reliance and biodiversity preservation, it is time to reflect. Not just on how much maize we grow, but how we grow it, who benefits from it, and what we might risk losing in the name of technological shortcuts.
India’s maize story is one of quiet success, not desperation. As per Business Line (July 23, 2025), maize cultivation rose by 15 percent compared to the previous year. Production has reached an impressive 422.81 lakh tonnes, driven by strong demand for animal feed, starch-based industries, and ethanol blending. Domestic markets are thriving. Divya Kumar Gulati, Chairman of CLFMA of India, notes that the livestock sector alone is growing at 8 to 10 percent annually. This is creating a sustained demand for feed maize. Yet, despite this abundant harvest, India imported 9.7 lakh tonnes of maize in last year. This was a sixfold increase from the previous year. Why this contradiction? Because behind the scenes, global trade interests, especially those supporting genetically modified maize, are quietly reshaping India’s agricultural choices. There is growing pressure to open the Indian market to genetically modified maize, in the name of science, productivity, and trade.
GM Crops: A Scientific Solution or a Trade Strategy?
The GM maize debate is often positioned as a binary between science and superstition. But the issue is more nuanced. The Supreme Court of India is actively engaged in adjudicating the validity of GM crop approvals. India’s apex biotech regulator, The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), has given a nod to certain GM crops, citing productivity boosts. Yet, scientists and policymakers remain divided. While proponents argue GM crops can withstand pests and reduce pesticide usage, critics counter that GM adoption often leads to monocultures, imbalances in soil nutrient, seed sovereignty loss, and agrarian dependency on MNCs.
One must ask: is there a real yield crisis that requires GM intervention? India’s recent maize success says otherwise. Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Telangana are witnessing year-on-year increases in maize area and yield. Farmers, having found good prices for maize in the past two years, are shifting from soybean and pulses to maize voluntarily. It is not because of subsidies or biotech intervention, but because the market is rewarding their effort. Also, as India moves toward E27 ethanol blending norms (as per the Ministry’s plan for August 2025), maize will serve a pivotal role in ethanol-based fuel. This policy shift aligns more organically with India’s climate goals than embracing GM maize, which may come with hidden ecological costs.
The MNC’s insistence on GM maize market access is not just about science, it is strategic. In a post-COVID, multipolar world, agricultural exports are being weaponized for leverage. As India negotiates key trade agreements, including tariff waivers and digital cooperation, food trade emerges as a bargaining chip. What appears as “technological collaboration” is, in reality, a push to secure markets for surplus imported GM maize, which has faced rejection in the EU and Africa due to consumer resistance and ecological concerns.
India must ask: Do we want to be the testing ground for technologies that others are hesitating to adopt?
1At present, India does not officially allow commercial cultivation of GM maize. However, the GEAC’s permissions for trials and imports have quietly expanded under the radar. Rather than chasing transgenic shortcuts, India must strengthen agro-ecological research, support non-GM hybrid development, and promote agri-startups that work with precision farming, natural biofortification, and climate-resilient cropping. Institutes like IIMR (Indian Institute of Maize Research) and State Agricultural Universities have already developed non-GM hybrids with high yield potential. The answer is not to reject technology, but to localize it, democratize it, and decolonize it. A technology that replaces farmers with dependencies, or ignores India’s diverse agro-climatic zones, cannot be hailed as progress.
India’s agriculture is not just a GDP contributor; it is a cultural and strategic asset. Introducing GM maize without adequate biosafety nets, traceability protocols, and farmer consent is not modernization, it’s marginalization. If we allow ourselves to be nudged into GM maize imports now, it sets a precedent: that external pressure hits internal policy. It tells our farmers their practices aren’t “modern” enough. And it could lead to long-term erosion of public trust in science and governance.
India’s maize fields are already golden, not just in colour, but in promise. With growing domestic production, rising ethanol demand, and farmer-led crop shifts, the need for GM maize is neither urgent nor justifiable. Let us not allow global trade ambitions to shadow domestic wisdom. As a nation that prides itself on food security, biodiversity, and self-reliance, India must tread carefully. The world may watch what we decide but it is our farmers, our consumers, and our ecosystems that will live with the consequences.
Let us invest in resilience, not revisionism. Let India’s maize remain a symbol of strength, not a story of surrender.
By Dr. Mamtamayi Priyadarshini
Environmentalist, Social Worker, and Trustee of Prashubhgiri (A Trust for Farmers’ Voices).
Bottom of Form
