M
S Swaminathan, popularly known as the father of India’s Green
Revolution, has been associated with national agricultural research
since 1947. Here is what he has to say about how India's research
priorities have changed over time.
[dte]
Oct 31, 2013
M S Swaminathan, popularly known as the father
of India’s Green Revolution, has been associated with national
agricultural research system (NARS) since 1947 when he was a student at
the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). After getting PhD
from Cambridge University, he joined IARI, of which he became director,
and then director general of ICAR. A believer in the need to articulate
clear, goal-oriented research, Swaminathan tells Latha Jishnu what has changed since his time. Excerpts
M S SwaminathanCan you tell us how research priorities have changed?
Research is always dynamic and, therefore, priorities will change
over time. In the 1950s and ’60s, our major goal was improving crop
productivity. Currently, the emphasis should be on improving the income
of farmers as well as the environmental sustainability of agronomic
technologies. I see two changes: in the linkage between science and
public policy, which was very close, and in the strong relation between
the scientist and farmers, where the former would go to the farmer’s
field and demonstrate the technology.
How did this linkage become weaker?
One reason is that scientists don’t express their views. Today the GM
debate is going on and you hardly find scientists from ICAR, the top
most institute, talking about GM science. They should express their
views. In 2004, I suggested an All India Coordinated Research Project on
biosafety. Today there are over 1,000 (GM cotton) hybrids and farmers
are confused. ICAR should have forced all companies to test under
bio-safety precautions.
Is it because scientists are scared?
Yes, it is about being a government servant. In our time our strength
was communication with the media. When the whole world was saying
‘these guys are going to fail in Green Revolution’, Indian media was
saying the opposite because I got them to the field.
How the research environment changed?
Scientists today are better paid and laboratories are better
equipped. A sense of complacency has set in; there is no longer the
pressure to do something urgently to improve the wellbeing of farm
families.
Has the quality of scientific manpower changed significantly since your time?
The quality of scientific manpower varies widely from institution to
institution. Most of the agricultural universities have become highly
inbred. Appointments to senior positions are also made on the basis of
political influence. There is more emphasis on bricks than brains.
Achievements are measured by the number of buildings built and money
spent and not by the improvement in the wellbeing of farm and fisher
families.
There is a general perception that ICAR’s role and research has declined. Do you agree?
ICAR has not declined in terms of money but there is a need to
strengthen national research system and not hand over our responsibility
to international institutions. There must be well-defined milestones.
When I was in IARI we had small groups and we had a very clear idea
about what has to be done. There were clear goals, five-year plans and
we got results.
The Chinese appear to have done much better than us.
The Chinese have done a much better job because they are able to
generate team-based and focused work. They also have a strong bond
between scientists and farmers. In a small way such bonds were developed
during the Cultural Revolution, but have now become organic and
ingrained in the system. This is why China could spread technologies
like hybrid rice very fast.
