a day ago
A tribute to M.S. Swaminathan, ‘the man who fed India'
The Viksit Bharat aspiration, which has gained considerable momentum, will require a significant development of scientific capability, and some of this, especially in the new digital economy, will have to be aatmanirbhar. There is much to learn in this context from the most successful experiment in atmanirbharata in the past, which was the achievement of food self-sufficiency in the 1960s. M.S. Swaminathan was the man who did it and he was a living hero to all of us. This is the centenary year of his birth and it has seen the publication of a new biography, M.S. Swaminathan: the Man who Fed India, by Priyambada Jayakumar.
Ms. Jayakumar had the benefit of detailed discussions with him on both the personal and professional side of his life and she has produced a book which is a great read. However, in this article, I will focus on some lessons from his experience which have relevance for the future.
The planting of a seed of an idea
Scientific advancement was at the core of the Green Revolution and the book brings out that such advances are not achieved by dedicated scientists working in isolation in a lab. They involve collaboration with other scientists and a cross-fertilisation of ideas. It was known that wheat productivity could be increased through application of fertilizers and other inputs, but the problem was that the higher weight of grains caused the plant to bend and lodge if the stalk was not strong enough. Swaminathan was trying to use radiation to develop a genetic mutation that would have a stronger stalk, but this approach was not getting anywhere.
In 1958, a Japanese scientist visiting Delhi told Swaminathan that a dwarf wheat variety developed in Japan, and which had a shorter, stronger stalk, could hold the higher weight of grain without bending. Swaminathan found that the new variety had been taken to the United States where a seed breeder was working on it. The breeder told Swaminathan that they were developing a winter variety, which would not be suitable for India, but Norman Borlaug in Mexico was developing a different variety that might work. As it happened, Swaminathan had met Borlaug earlier at a seminar in the U.S. He was able to persuade him to send a small quantity of his Mexican seeds to India. These seeds did well and Swaminathan wanted to invite Borlaug to come to India to discuss ways of adapting these varieties to Indian conditions.
The proposal to invite Borlaug was promptly approved by the Director of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) in 1960 but it took more than two years to get the bureaucratic approvals needed to send the invitation and Borlaug arrived only by March 1963.
Swaminathan often quoted Pandit Nehru's phrase, 'everything can wait but not agriculture', but the bureaucracy was clearly unaware of it. It is interesting to speculate on what would have been the benefits if the Green Revolution had come two years earlier. The important lesson is that for science to flourish, our scientists must be much better connected to relevant scientists abroad and become familiar with cutting-edge work in their field. This means they should travel more freely to attend conferences abroad and build personal contacts, all of which means bureaucratic control must be drastically reduced.
The next step was to subject the seeds to trials on the fields of actual farmers. Swaminathan could not get the Ministry to fund the effort. Fortunately, Lal Bahadur Shastri, who became Prime Minister in 1964, wanted to give higher priority to agriculture and for this purpose appointed C. Subramaniam as Minister of Agriculture. This made a critical difference. Subramaniam called about 20 agricultural scientists for a meeting to hear their views on how to increase food production. When Swaminathan was asked to speak, he frankly told the Minister that he had identified the new seeds that would solve the problem, but the Ministry was unable to fund the necessary trials. Subramaniam promptly called for the file and ensured that the funds were provided. It is a pity that we have no record of what the other scientists said in the meeting, and in particular whether the more senior scientists (Swaminathan was then only 39) had a different view.
The politician needs to listen to the scientist
This yields the second important lesson. In dealing with complex technical issues, the political leadership must hear the scientists/technical people involved directly instead of relying on the generalist bureaucracy to convey their views. Swaminathan greatly admired Pandit Nehru's commitment to science, but the book brings out that he soon realised that this 'had few takers even in his own government, ministries and the bureaucracy'. On page 48 the author puts it bluntly: 'Most ministers barely supported, understood, or believed in research and development…. this was also true of the Agriculture Minister in 1958.. (who ) would order scientists like Swaminathan to go into the field and 'sort out the problems' without really understanding the ground realities.'
One of the reasons China has done so well on the economic and technical front is that Ministers are usually technically qualified people, often engineers with a track record of successful management. Subramaniam exemplified that type of political leader: he was a physics graduate and had a good knowledge of science. If we want to achieve Viksit Bharat, and explore new and increasingly complex areas of science, we will need many more such Ministers in the years ahead, not only at the Centre but also in the States.
The field trials were a great success and the next step was to roll out the Green Revolution across the country. This required importing 18,000 tonnes of seed — the largest seed shipment in history — costing ₹5 crore in foreign exchange. There were objections from many fronts. The Finance Ministry was not happy releasing that much foreign exchange. The Planning Commission opposed the proposal on the grounds that it did not believe that the new seeds would do better than what we already had. The Left also opposed the move because the seeds were developed under a grant from a U.S. institution (the Rockefeller Foundation).
Shastri was understandably concerned about these conflicting views. Fortunately, Swaminathan persuaded him to visit the IARI to see for himself how the new wheat was doing. Shastri was convinced and the import of new seeds was duly approved. Tragically, Shastri passed away in January 1966 but Indira Gandhi, who took over as the next Prime Minister, also gave Swaminathan full backing.
The lesson is that when dealing with new and untried ideas, there will always be conflicting opinions even among so-called experts. It is important that all the different points of view are appropriately aired and considered. However, this process may not always result in a consensus. In such a situation, a decision has to be taken at the highest level. Once taken, the thing to do is to back the effort fully. But it must also be subjected to truly independent monitoring, with course corrections.
In the case of the Green Revolution, the results were amply evident within a few years. We reaped a bounteous wheat harvest in 1968 and we were able to start phasing out PL 480 imports. Over time, new problems arose. The excessive dependence on water and also fertilizer use led to environmental problems. Swaminathan himself, having left the government by then, warned about the corrections needed to make the Green Revolution environmentally sustainable. It is a pity that we are yet to implement these corrections.
The issues India needs to look at
Looking ahead, we know that climate change will have a severely negative effect on agricultural productivity. Once again, science will be critical and much will depend upon the performance of our research institutions. India was ahead of China in agricultural research in the late 1960s, but today, China has eight agricultural research institutions in the world's top 10 and India does not have any in the top 200. One reason is inadequate funding: we spend only 0.43% of our agricultural GDP on research and development, whereas the percentage in China is twice our level. But there is also the issue of the quality. Do our agricultural research institutions have the institutional autonomy and governance structure that they need to recruit and promote meritorious scientists? And can we ensure that our top agricultural scientists have the kind of access to political decision makers that Swaminathan had?
Filling these gaps is the best way of really honouring M.S. Swaminathan. And the lessons are relevant for other areas of scientific development also.
Montek S. Ahluwalia is Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Social and Economic Progress
