The other day, a poor farmer from the interior of Kerala asked me,
“Sir, in summer when we have severe water scarcity, even for drinking,
besides for our marginal farming, can we get some from the moon, where
scientists said water is available in plenty more than five years ago?”
An innocent question, but it speaks volumes for the relevance and impact
of Indian science to the life of the
common man. Come summer, Kerala,
despite receiving the second highest rainfall in the country, next only
to Cherrapunji in Meghalaya, suffers the most acute water scarcity, in
spite of the presence of a huge centre exclusively for research and
development in water management in northern Kerala, functioning for
almost half a century.
Not long ago, the Indian Space Research
Organisation (ISRO), with much fanfare and a colossal sum of money
invested from the national exchequer, told us it has been able to detect
water on the surface of the moon (the Americans had done it decades
ago). Now, the media hype on the ISRO mission to Mars makes me think,
what next? Surprisingly, the former ISRO chief who marshalled thousands
of crores for the moon mission now points a finger at the current one to
say that the Rs 450 crore-plus spent on the Mars mission is a waste of
money.
Ironically, the principal scientific adviser to the prime
minister comes to the defence of the new chief saying that “Rs 450 crore
is peanuts compared to the central fund allocation for science”. As an
honest taxpayer, and one who does not understand space science, I am
aghast at the thought that the country seems to be awash with so much
cash that it simply can dole out Rs 450 crore as though doling out a
morsel of peanuts!
Like the poor illiterate farmer who questioned
me about bringing water from the moon to his parched fields and thirsty
mouth, I am concerned about what is happening to the crores spent on
agricultural research, as I am back in India, having spent over three
decades in Europe, Africa and other parts of Asia. I have been closely
following the so-called green revolution, euphemistically called thus,
for a high-input industrial type of agriculture, transplanted on Indian
fields, which had nothing truly “green” about it (the term itself was
originally coined by an American scientist working for the US Department
of Agriculture, USDA for short, surreptitiously lifted by someone here,
which became a household term subsequently) that in essence was nothing
but a combination of a short type of wheat (again imported from the
International Research Centre for Maize and Wheat Research {CIMMYT)} in
Mexico), unbridled use of chemical fertilisers, water and pesticides.
And the adverse environmental fallout is all there for one to see.
Please go to Punjab the “cradle” of the green revolution, the reader
will understand what I say here.
My real worry is that those who
boss over the agricultural research set-up in India seem unable to
answer some very difficult and uncomfortable questions. Let us take a
bird’s eye view of the monolith, the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR). There are 98 institutes of one kind or the other, which
have been set up or were subsumed by ICAR after it was given full
control over all the research institutes under the ministry of
agriculture in 1966.
The term coined then was the National
Agricultural Research System (NARS). Additionally, ICAR funds and
oversees about 56 State Agricultural Universities (SAUs), besides four
deemed universities and a Central Agricultural University for the
Northeast. With 24,000 scientists and a 12th Five-Year Plan budget of Rs
25,000 crore (initial request was Rs 50000 crores!), this is “no
peanut”. Yet, what does the common man reap? The ICAR often boasts one
of the largest national agricultural systems in the world. My finding is
that in terms of its geographical spread, manpower, budget allocation
and infrastructure, it takes the third spot behind USDA and the Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS).
But there it stops. Both
USDA and CAAS have made spectacular contributions to agricultural
science. The spectacular fundamental research in soil science (where I
had the privilege to collaborate) of USDA and the American varsities and
the hybrid rice of CAAS are just two examples. And what do we have to
show to the world except a failed “green revolution”? The problem arises
when one a takes a very hard look at a balance sheet — input and
output. Take the case of a country like Brazil, with far less manpower
and budget, which has made a lot more impact on farming of the poor
peasants. The current director-general of ICAR admits that present
challenges to Indian farming are daunting. He cites soil degradation
(thanks to the so-called green revolution) and the consequent plateauing
of crop yield, specially in rice and wheat, as examples. What have the
scientists of ICAR and SAUs done to mitigate the problem? Put another
way, the dwarf “miracle” wheat imported from CIMMYT (it was no
innovation here) did the wonder for about two decades, but what have the
subsequent ones offered? A yield difference of 1-5 per cent, one way or
another. Is there any spectacular one that helps a yield jump of 300
per cent over those currently cultivated? This is a question Indian
scientists cannot face.
More importantly, when we take up a
project to emulate others, it turns out to be not just a failure, but a
real fraud. Almost a decade ago, when Monsanto-peddled Bt Cotton made
headlines, ICAR began foraying into a desi Bt Cotton. Alas, the
“Bikaneri Narma” (BN Bt) Cotton turned out to be not just a failure, but
a fraud and flew in the face of the DG. Monsanto made profit of Rs 2000
crore-plus from its royalties. A former vice chancellor and his top
colleagues of University of Agricultural Sciences in Bangalore are
facing criminal charges for clandestinely letting Mahyco (a Monsanto
subsidiary) poach Indian brinjal violating agricultural biodiversity
norms. Is there a greater shame? Here is what an official of the
agriculture ministry said: “Cotton is a good example of what is
happening in agricultural science. Pitted against companies with a
turnover of Rs 4000-crore plus annually, our research has faltered and
fallen by the way side.” Is there a worse indictment than this, coming
as it is, from our countryman? Unless fresh ideas and brilliant minds
combine, Indian agricultural research will go down the drain,
squandering public money.
(The author is an international agricultural scientist and can be reached at drkppnair@gmail.com)
