'Hunger is the worst way to die'
The international community respects your remarkable contribution in growing dwarf wheat that withstands climatic and agronomic adversities. What inspired you towards this?
It was the combination of bringing together many genes in the wheat programme. In Mexico, in 1948, the first improved varieties with reasonably good agronomic characteristics were very tall. We began adopting superior characteristics, like resistance to diseases, with new wheat from our research program that seemed as good or better than the best growing variety;45 to 50 varieties were developed. In Washington State, Dr Orville Vogel incorporated these genes into tall winter wheat and then reduced their heights. The genetic stock I started with came from Dr Vogel. We incorporated that into spring wheat. We finally incorporated dwarfing genes into all these improvements.
Was global hunger an issue at that time?
No. When this programme started in 1943 with the Mexican government and the Rockefeller Foundation, it was only to see what could be done to help USA next door.
Were you aware of the agricultural scenario in India or South East Asia then?
I was interested in Indian agriculture before the separation of India and Pakistan. I used to read about it, but I was ignorant really of the problem.
Upon visiting India, what did you see for yourself?
When I went to India, I saw those low yields and knew that plant pathology with plant breeding will not solve the soil's problem. I was adamant in discussions with the political leadership and top scientists that restoration of soil fertility had to have number one importance together with plant breeding.
Were they receptive?
Ah...maybe yes, maybe no. There was a lot of skepticism about chemical fertiliser. Organic fertiliser was preferred, but there was not enough quantity. I always say - use organic but do not come to the Third World and say we can produce the food needed for 6. 3 billion people without the best investments in chemical fertiliser.
What is your answer to the criticism you and Prof M S Swaminathan face, of having introduced lethal combinations of fertilisers and pesticides to agriculture?
Here's the magnitude of the problem. There's 70 million metric tons of nitrogen used now to produce a massive amount of food. To produce this amount of nitrate from cattle dung, we will have to multiply the present cattle population, close to 1. 5 million animals, by a factor of seven. You have to multiply 75 million tons of nutrient nitrogen coming from chemical fertiliser by a factor of 50 to organically produce that amount. Think of the additional land needed to produce this manure. We will have to cut down huge amounts of forests to graze the cattle. . . there should not be all this confusion. But it comes back again and again. The reason is, there are so many people who have never produced food themselves, speaking in theoretical terms about organic versus chemical. They have no concept of how to integrate all the factors needed to increase food production.
With global food demands vis-à-vis population growth, are we at the verge of another global food crisis if corrective initiatives are not taken soon?
This is true. But if research is organised and there is international collaboration, this should pose no problem. As a matter of fact, that situation permitted the decision to use dwarf wheat varieties in the sixties. It was backed up by testing, with or without fertilisers, across 150 to 200 Middle East locations.
The Green Revolution is blamed for having promoted only three main staple food items - wheat, rice and maize, completely ignoring thousands of other varieties, resulting in major losses of agro-biodiversity ?
They have not necessarily been completely ignored, but they were under-funded in research. This is especially true of minor but important crops like the edible legumes, beans, peas, the things that provide good protein. They need more research.
Coming to global hunger, can GM food be an answer?
Throughout human history, there has always been resistance to change. Status quo is comfortable. The thought of change, that something may go wrong, is frightening to most people. That is why we need scientists following the scientific data they produce and not being afraid to promote new technology.
In your Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, you have especially acknowledged the work of Professor M S Swaminathan. It is widely believed he brought international acceptability to your work at a mass level, making the required changes with on-farm demonstrations?
Yes, Swaminathan was a visionary. He saw all these interacting factors, not just the genetic plant breeding, but agronomy, soil state, insect protection, fortification against weeds and diseases. He had a unique ability to transmit this at the administrative level and also the educational and government policy level. That was fundamental change. He had a good group of collaborators, like Dr Mathur, Dr Kohli and Dr Rao.
One of the main factors behind the success of the Green Revolution was a situation permitting exports. There were no unmanageable restrictions on transborder movements of seeds. Now there are all kinds of restrictions on international trade and research. Can the earlier model be repeated?
No. It's true, the bureaucracy has become ever more tightening. You can call a plant or animal quarantine or economic protection of producers in export countries even though they may be subsidising their own people. These are things one has to deal with. Yet, scientists should not be afraid. You have to find out how to get through this tangled confusion, negotiate the borderline between science and technology application, influenced by economic and political policy.
You interacted closely with the top political leadership of India and Pakistan. Were there differences in
the agricultural priorities of these two countries?
It's a question of when India became part of the international testing. But I must say that one leader in Pakistan who made a great difference was President Ayub Khan. He originally was a farmer, actually came from the soil. Even when he joined the military, he maintained a strong interest in agriculture. And he had an excellent agriculture minister, Malik Khuda Bakhsh Bucha, and a good agriculture secretary. They had support from the top. India soon had that, but India was not a part of the programme until 1963.
What are your fondest memories of this experience?
The fondest memory is the words of someone I didn't know. In the 1970s, there was a small conference in Washington DC chaired by William Gaud, administrator for the US Department of Agriculture. At this conference, the term 'Green Revolution' was first used. Gaud said, "Six months ago, I said things were beginning to happen. Now, I can say there has been dramatic change. A Green Revolution is taking place. It is not a Red Revolution, like the Soviets. It is not a White Revolution, like the Shah of Iran. It is a Green Revolution, based on science and technology, and India and Pakistan will soon become self-sufficient in food. This Green Revolution is critical to human improvement. " This was what William Gaud said.
What is the worst face of hunger?
I don't think there is any worse way to die than to die of hunger.
Of late, you have been active in Africa. What is the scenario there?
It is extremely complicated. Part of it goes back to bad policies in colonial times relating to infrastructure. In India, railroads were built in colonial times to transport cotton needed in Britain. As soon as railroads came, stone roads got built to bring cotton to the rail heads. Farmers got unusually good hydraulic engineers to help develop irrigation. . . so, the infrastructure for wheat and other crops was there in India and Pakistan. But in Africa, where did the colonial railroads go? To the mines...diamond mines, mineral mines. Agriculture was not important. That affected it. Africa is still a continent of untold numbers of tribal cultures, ethnic and linguistic barriers. All this complicates development in Africa compared to Asia.
Despite your immense contribution to solving food crises around the world, do you feel frustrated?
Of course. The biggest frustration is now. Wheat is a minor crop in Africa except north of the Sahara. In the case of maize, a most important crop, we have had highly successful farm demonstrations with the best seeds, good fertiliser practices, methods to control weeds and double or triple the yield. But the market is not there. You can't move grain from areas of surplus to areas of hunger. Infrastructure matters. Roads bring schools, public health, trucks and buses. They break down ethnic barriers, cultural barriers. Everything begins to change. In Africa we haven't had that support. That is the biggest frustration of all. I want to see something happening in Africa before I die and at my age, I might not be here beyond a few more months.
Dinesh Lakhanpal is a documentary filmmaker who explores development, governance and environmental issues
=============================================
No comments:
Post a Comment