சில தினங்களுக்குமுன் மதியம் 2.30க்குப் பக்கமாக, ஒரு அழைப்பு. ஐஃபோன் திரை ஜேக்கப் நல்லித்தானம் என்று காட்டியது. காவி குர்த்தா ஆட்டுத்தாடி கண்முன் வந்து நின்றது.
ஹலோ. என்ன வழக்கம் போல் சென்ட்ரல் ஸ்டேஷனில் இருந்தா?
ம். ஹி ஹி சென்னையை நெருங்கிக் கொண்டிருக்கிறேன். நர்சி நீ எப்படி இருக்கிறாய்? இன்று சந்திக்க இயலுமா?
எப்போது ட்ரெய்ன்?
இரவு 9க்கு. இயலுமென்றால் வேறு எங்கேனும் கூட சந்திக்கலாம். நான் அடையாறு செல்வதாக உள்ளேன்.
அடப்பாவி இது சனிக்கிழமையாக இருக்கக் கூடாதா. பெஸண்ட் நகர் அடையாரிலிருந்து மிக அருகில். இப்போது நானிருப்பது இன்னொரு கோடி. செண்ட்ரல்தான் சரி. ஆறுமணிக்குப் பிறகுதான் அலுவலகத்திலிருந்து விடுபட முடியும். இன்று எப்படியும் பாரீஸ் போகத் திட்டமிட்டிருக்கிறேன். திரும்புகாலில் செல்லில் அழைக்கிறேன். முடிந்தால் சந்திக்கலாம். சரி இங்கிருந்து போவது எந்த ஊருக்கு?
பிலாஸ்பூர்.
பிலாஸ்பூர். எம்பியா?
முன்னால் மத்யப்ரதேஷ். இப்போது சத்தீஷ்கர்.
பூக்கடைக்குப் போய் கோவிந்தப்ப நாயக்கன் தெருவில் திரும்பி அகர்வால் இனிப்பகத்தைப் பார்த்தால் வண்டிவிட இடமில்லை. பக்கத்தில் ராமகிருஷ்ணா பவன் காலியாக இருக்கவே பைக்கை விட்டுவிட்டு பார்க்கிங் டோக்கனாக சமோசா தின்று நாலெட்டு நடந்து எதிர்சாரி சிங்கப்பூர் கோவணத்தில் படியேறி கோடிக்கடையை அடைந்தால் வெளிநாட்டு தேக மேட்டர்கள் சீப்பாய்க் கிடைக்கும் சேட்டுக் கடை.சவரத்திற்குப் பிறகான வாசனைத் திரவியம், தேக தெளிப்பான் மற்றும் கோடாலித் தைலமும் வாங்கிக் கொண்டு வந்து வண்டியெடுத்து செண்ட்ரலைத்தாண்டி ரிப்பன் பில்டிங் சுற்றி சென்ட்ரலில் காசு கொடுத்து இருட்டுக் குப்பைச் சரிவில் வண்டியை நிறுத்துவதற்குள், தொப்பை கரைந்திருப்பது போல பிரமை. சுற்றிப்போவதைத் தவிர்க்க,தூரத்து வெளிச்சத்தில் தடுமாறி கட்டைச் சுவரேறி குதித்து ப்ளாட்பாரம் டிக்கெட் வாங்கப் பரபரத்தால் எங்கு நோக்கினும் சீசன் டிக்கெட் கவுண்டர். அப்புறம்தான் விளங்கிற்று என் அற்ப சாகஸம். வந்து செர்ந்திருந்தது புறநகர் ரயில் நிலையம். நடந்தால் நாதாரி மெட்ராஸ் எவ்ளோ பெருசு என சபித்தபடி பிரதான வாயிலுக்கு வந்து, பிளாட்பாரம் டிக்கெட் வாங்கிக் கொண்டு உள்ளே போய் செல்லடித்தால்,
‘உனக்காக பிரதான வாயிலில் நிற்கிறேன்’
உள்ளே வா நான் பிரதான காத்திருப்பில் நின்றிருக்கிறேன்.
வாசலைப் பார்த்துக் கண் பூத்துப் போய் தண்டியாய்த் தாண்டிப் போன பொம்பளையை நின்றபடி பின்தொடர்ந்து 180 பாகை சுழன்று பத்திரமாய் வழியனுப்பி வைத்தால் நரைத்த ஜில்பா தலையும் காவி ஜிப்பாவுமாக லக்கேஜை உருளையில் இழுத்தபடி செல்லைக் காதில் பிடித்து மறுகையால் லக்கேஜ் ட்ராலியை இழுத்தபடி ஜேக்கப் சென்றுகொண்டு இருந்தான். வேகமாய் முன்சென்று வழிமறைப்பாய் நின்றேன். கண்சுருக்கி பின் மலர்ந்தான்.
ஹே நர்சி என்ன இது.
லக்கேஜ் உனக்குப் பின்னால் வருகிறது எனக்கு முன்னால் வருகிறது அவ்வளவுதான்.
எத்துனை வருஷம்?
ஆமாம் இருவரும் பென்சில்களாய் இருந்தபோது பார்த்தது.
ட்ரெயின் முதல் பிளாட்பாரத்தில் அசையாத கம்பளிப் பூச்சிபோல இருண்டு கிடந்தது. உணவு வாங்க வேண்டும் என்றான். சரவணா நோக்கி அழைத்துச் சென்றேன். அந்தப்புறம் இருந்த மேரி ப்ரெளனில் சிக்கன் பிரியாணி பார்சல் கேட்டான்.
1985-86 சைக்கிள் பயணத்திற்கு கேரளாவில் இருந்து வந்த சிலரில் ஒருவன். அதிர்ந்து பேசாத அமைதிவான். பாபா ஆம்தேவின் கனவான இளைஞர் கிராமம் அமைக்க சமூக சேவையை வாழ்வாய் சுவீகரித்துக் கொண்ட ஐவரில் இன்னமும் அமலில் இருந்துகொண்டு இருப்பவன்.
பாபாவுடன் சைக்கிளில் சென்றால் தேசீய ஒருமைப்பாடு சாத்தியமோ இல்லையோ, சோதைப் போட்டு ஊரைக் காட்டுகிறாரே ஒரு ஆள் பதிலுக்கு சைக்கிள்தானே மிதிக்கப் போகிறோம் என்கிற சொந்தக் கனவோடு போன சிறுவன் நான்.
உண்மையான மகா ஆத்மாக்கள் எல்லாம் பேய் பிசாசுகளால் இயக்கப்பட்டுக் கொண்டு இருப்பவர்களாகத்தான் இருக்கவேண்டும். உச்சநீதிமன்ற நர்மதா தீர்ப்புக்கு எதிராக எழும்பிய பாபாவின் குரல்.
Court must Adhere to the Constitution of Ambedkar and Gandhi
Encourage Rule of Law and Not the Rule of Corporates
Baba Amte
Lok Biradari, Kasrawad, Dist. Badwani, MP.
The majority verdict of the Supreme Court about the Sardar Sarovar dam is beyond the rule of law and only reinforces the government's oppressive way against the people. The judges should have seen the facts for themselves; and not as Government agencies. The judgement has entrusted the monitoring work of rehabilitation to the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) while giving the go ahead to the project. This so-called watchdog are but the government bodies and have no teeth to protect the interests of Adivasis and peasants. The Judges could have gone in depth about the merits of the project, whether it really solves the problem of Kutch and Saurashtra. Instead it went on singing hyperbole for the project without any scrutiny. It has been observed that the judiciary, at times, wearing the cloak of priesthood, suffocates the human rights of the poor. Corruption and Capital are given legitimacy instead of adhering to the rule of law. But, we have different expectations from Indian judiciary. The Constitution of India, created basically for the protection of the rights of the poor and depressed, inspired by the values that Mahatma Gandhi cherished and drafted with the egalitarian passion by Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar, lies sacrificed at the altar of the corporate interests and their crafty plans. Our Constitution makers envisaged the equality, democracy and the protection of the fundamental rights of the depressed classes, as the utmost values, which the Judges should have heeded.
The dissenting judgement by Jst. Bharucha is a face-saver for Indian judiciary and it does vindicate the issues raised in the court. He has asked the stopping the dam and having a new environmental clearance for the dam. It is unfortunate that his judgement is considered as minority judgement. The majority-minority issue should not have been allowed to be used against the rights of the have-nots in India.
The Judgement against the people in the Narmada valley heralds a new battle ahead for the poor and dispossessed of this country. It requires tremendous effort and resilience on the part of the people and activists in the Narmada valley to rise and fight again after such a blow from the system. When one sees the death procession of the human rights of the marginalised people, it is imperative that the President of India must intervene as his Constitutional duty. I call unto the youths with sharp teeth of this country to take bites of this injustice and restore the sanctity of the Constitution. It is a time that we strengthen another Freedom struggle for a sane, just, non-violent and sustainable society.
From my sickbed, remembering the pristine flow of Narmada and the warmth of life around it, I still hope that the judiciary recognises its commitment to the values in the Constitution as given by Ambedkar and Gandhi. Do not sacrifice the life of the last person of India for the sake of the corporate powers. The protectors should not become connivers of the crime against the depressed classes.
Anandvan, October 26, 2000
பார்சலை வாங்கிக் கொண்டு அவனது ட்ரெயின் நோக்கி நடந்தோம்.
ஜேக்கப்பைக் கடைசியாய்ப் பார்த்தது நர்மதா போராட்டத்தில் பாபா ஆம்தே தம்மையும் இணைந்துக்கொண்டு ஜலசமாதியை நோக்கித் தீவிரப்பட்டுக் கொண்டிருந்த நேரம். இறுதி எண்பதுகளில் (89ஆக இருக்கலாம்). ஒரு நாள் திடுதிப்பென்று ஜேக்கப் என் அலுவலகத்தில் பிரசன்னமானான். தமிழ்நாட்டில் இருக்கும் இரண்டு முதன்மைக் குடிமக்களிடம் நர்மதா போராட்டத்திற்கு ஆதரவாக தேசீய அளவில் வெளியிடப்படவிருக்கும் கூட்டறிக்கைக்காகக் கையெழுத்து வாங்க வேண்டும் அவர்களிருவரும் ஒப்புதல் அளித்து உள்ளனர். கையெழுத்து வாங்கி அனுப்ப முடியுமா என்று ரயில் பிடிக்கவேண்டிய அவசரத்தில் நின்றிருந்தான். அவ்வளவுதானே செய்தால் போயிற்று என ஒப்புக் கொண்டேன்.
கடந்த 25-30 வருடங்களில்,மெட்ராஸே சென்னை என்று ஆகிவிட்டது என்றாலும் முதன்மைக் குடிமக்களின் பட்டியல் அவ்வளவு சுலபமாய் மாற்றமடையக்கூடியதா என்ன? ஆங்கில ஊடக வெளிச்சத்தில், பளிச்சென வெளுத்துத் தெரிபவையே தெற்கின் தீர்க்க மூளைகள்.
தபால்காரனாக,எம்.எஸ்.சுவாமிநாதனையும் இந்து என்.ராமையும் நேரில் சந்தித்து, கையெழுத்து வாங்கி அனுப்பி வைத்தேன். மறுதினம் கூட்டறிக்கை வெளியாயிற்று. அலுவலக சக ஊழியர்களுக்கு - இதில் பலர் திராவிட கட்சிகள் சார்புடையோராக இருந்தும் பத்திரிகையில் வரும்முன் கூட்டறிக்கையைப் பார்க்கக் கிடைத்ததில் பரவசம்.சும்மா ஒன்றும் இது ஜிப்பாவுடன் திரியவில்லை இதுவும் ஒரு ஆள்தான் பொலும் என ஒரு பாராட்டுணர்ச்சி. கூட்டறிக்கையை அச்சில் பார்த்ததும் திருவேங்கடத்திற்குத் தரையில் கால் பாவவில்லை.
ட்ரெயினில் விளக்கு போடப்பட்டிருந்தது. மூன்றடுக்குக் குளிரூட்டப்பட்ட பெட்டியில் அவனிடத்தில் அமரும் வரை பொத்தாம் பொதுவாய்ப் போய்க் கொண்டு இருந்தது பேச்சு. இன்னமும் திருமணம் செய்துகொள்ளாத அவன் தற்போது என்ன செய்து கொண்டு இருக்கிறான்? என்று கேட்டவண்ணம், நாங்கள் கடைசியாக நேரில் சந்திக்க நேர்ந்த நர்மதா கூட்டறிக்கைப் பிரபலங்களின் கையெழுத்தை நினைவுறுத்தினேன்.
சாந்த சொரூபியான ஃபாதர் ஜேக்கப் கெட்ட வார்த்தையில் வெடிக்கத் தொடங்கினான்.
சிரித்தபடி, 89ல் கையெழுத்திற்கு வந்தபோது அவர் பற்றி நல்ல கருத்து இருந்ததா எனக் கேட்டேன்.
சைக்கிள் பயணம் வருமுன் (85க்கு முன்) பத்திரிகைகள் படிக்கக் கொடுத்த பாடமாக சாதனையாளர் என்றே நினைத்திருந்தேன். பயணத்திற்குப் பின் நேரடியாக மண்ணில் கால் பதித்ததும்தான் உண்மை நிலவரம் தெரிந்தது என்றான்.
Mr Jacob the agricultur
சரி அப்படியெனில் கையெழுத்திற்கு மட்டும் அவர் தேவையா?
அது நர்மதா போராட்டக் குழுவின் செய்தி பரப்புதலுக்கான அவர்களின் தேர்வு. நான் வெறும் தபால்காரன்.
ஒற்றைக் கையெழுத்தில் அவருக்கு தார்மீக நன்முகமும் இலவசமாய்க் கிடைத்ததாக ஆயிற்று என்றேன்.
சிரித்தபடி, இல்லஸ்ட்ரேட்டட் வீக்லியில் வெளியான, க்ளாட் அல்வாரிஸின் த க்ரேட் ஜீன் ராபரி படித்திருக்கிறாயா என்றான்.
கேள்விப்பட்டிருக்கிறேன். படித்ததில்லை என்றேன்.
நாளை இரவு பிலாஸ்பூர் சென்றதும் ஸ்கேன் செய்து மெய்ல் அனுப்புகிறேன் என மின்னஞ்சல் முகவரியைக் கேட்டு முறுவலுடன் எழுதிக் கொண்டான்.
சிரித்தேன்.
என்ன என்றான்.
அவ்வளவு சிரமப்படத் தேவையில்லை. இப்போது வீடடைந்ததும் கூகுள் கொடுத்துவிடும் என்றேன்.
தமிழ் கூகுளில் கிளாட் அல்வாரிஸ் என்று அடித்தால்,
கிளாட் அல்வாரிஸ் அவர்களின் நேர்காணலை வெளியிட வேண்டும் என்ற திட்டம் இன்னும் சாத்தியமாகவில்லை. இன்னும் செய்யக் கூடியவை ...
www.kalachuvadu.com/.../page14.asp - தற்காலிக சேமிப்பில்
www.kalachuvadu.com/.../page14.asp - தற்காலிக சேமிப்பில்
ஆங்கிலத்தில் அடித்ததும் கொண்டுவந்து கொட்டியது.
ம்ஹூம் ஜேக்கப் நல்லித்தானம் கிளாட் அல்வாரிஸ் போன்ற கிறித்துவ அறிவுஜீவிகள், உயிலில் எனக்கே எனக்கென எழுதிக் கொடுக்கப்பட்ட இந்து ராஷ்டிரத்தைத் துண்டாடுவதையே தங்களின் வாழ் குறிக்கோளாகக் கொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள். இவர்கள் சொல்வதில் கிஞ்சித்தும் உண்மை இருக்காது என்று நம்பவே மனம் விரும்புகிறது. ஆனால் விஞ்ஞானி Dr Richharia ஒரிசா உயர்நீதிமன்றம் போய் வென்றதை உண்மையில்லை என்று எப்படிச் சொல்வது?
The Great Gene Robbery
IRRI had been set up in 1960 as part of America’s efforts to control and direct rice research in Asia, even though American is hardly a rice eating country.
A famous plant-breeder had once said, in regard to rice: ‘He who controls the supply of rice will control the destiny of the entire Asiatic orbit. The most important thing to the majority of the Asia is not capitalism or socialism or any other political ideology but food which means life itself, and in most of Asia, food is rice.’
Earl Butz, a former US Secretary of Agriculture, is notorious for one sentence that he uttered in a course of an otherwise utterly insignificant life: ‘If food can be used as a weapon we would be happy to use it.’
And today, as we near the end of the twentieth century, we have to admit that the research concerning the two major cereals that rule our lives – wheat and rice – is wholly directed and controlled by institutions set up under American imperialism.
In many ways Dr Swaminathan’s appointment to IRRI would have been considered a demotion. While in India, he had lorded it over a scientific establishment that employed thousands of scientists, in the Philippines he would have not more than 200 scientists under him. The principal compensation, however, was the money, income tax free.
Already this international institute, always run by American directors, was facing the collapse of its High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) strategy, as seed after seed fell victim to waves of pest epidemics. Urgently required was a massive expansion of IRRI’s rice germplasm, genes from which were essential for passing on resistance to the HYVs. The largest collection of rice varieties, of rice germplasm, remained in the Indian sub continent. Swaminathan’s appointment was critical to this quest.
The IRRI is not a premier institute of science. It is a privately-controlled agricultural research centre. Even so, it is difficult to conceive of a man with Swaminathan’s record becoming its director general. Unless of course the person being appointed is known more for his ability to get things done than for his scientific work. Certainly no scientist with an equivalent scientific record would have found an appointment as director of, say, the Max Planck Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), or the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR). I ask knowledgeable people in the Philippines how Swaminathan could have been appointed to the post of director general of IRRI. The most plausible answer was also the funniest.
There were apparently three applicants for the post. The first, a vice-president of the Rockefeller Foundation, insisted on coming to the institute with both his wife and his mistress, if he got the job. The second candidate, from West Germany, was found, upon examination, not to have a degree that he had stitched on to his name. In comparison, Dr M S Swaminathan whom an article in the 1979 Yearbook of Science and the Future, published by the Encyclopedia Britannica, put in the company of Paul Kammerer and Cyril Burt, two of the leading scientific frauds of the twentieth century, appeared white as snow.---------------------------------------------India is rice country. Rice is a critical component of a complex eco-system, tied to legends, used as symbol, essential witness at religious ceremonies and rituals. Such an immense preoccupation with rice would, which is to be expected, call forth its own brand of competence to grow it; so we find a bewildering number of techniques, some of which even today, place Indian rice farmers, some Adivasis, in a class far ahead of international science (see box).
In the Jagannath Temple at Puri in Orissa, I was told, freshly harvested rice is presented to the deity everyday, and various varieties of rice, placed in pots, one on top of the other, with a single flame beneath the lowermost, still cook simultaneously. In Chattisgarh region there is a rice variety called Bora, which can be ground directly into flour and made into rotis. Other varieties have fascinating names, like the kali-mooch of Gwalior, the moti-chur and the khowa; the latter, as its name signifies, tastes like dried milk. The dhokra-dhokri, with its length of grain over 14 mm is the longest rice in the world and the variety Bhimsen has the largest width; there is variety calledudan pakheru – because of its long, featherlike structure.
There may have been as many as 1,20,000 varieties of rice in the country, adapted to different environments, and selected and evolved by farmers for specific human needs. These varieties are a product of nature’s desire for diversity, eagerly husbanded by indigenous and non-formal science.
The Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI), at Cuttack, had been working on the different problems associated with rice culture ever since it had been set up in the late 1950s. Dr R H Richharia took over as its director in 1959, and a number of competent scientists had come up with interesting work that sooner or later would converge into a strategy to produce more rice. Already in 1963, C. Gangadharan, a CRRI scientist had, for example, produced a mutant variety that was short-statured and produced high yields. The institute had also been working on Taiwanese and Japanese varieties. The work was slow because it takes time to discover which varieties are stable, and resistant to diseases and pests.
Gangadharan has placed the history of rice research in India into three major periods and the developments are highly suggestive. The first phase, from 1912 to the 1950s, concentrated on pure line selections, and by the end of the period, a total of 445 improved rice varieties, mostly the result of pure line methods of selection, were bred.
But what is interesting for our purpose and which starkly illuminates the major schism that would soon develop between indigenous science and ‘international science’ is the broad list of objectives of this early research. Gangadharan lists nine including earliness, deep water and flood resistance, lodging resistance, drought resistance, non-shedding of grain, dormancy of seed, control of wild rice, disease resistance and higher response to heavy manuring. Since pure line selection is itself based on natural selection occurring over centuries, there was no problem of incompatibility between genes and the environment, and therefore no pest problem.
The second phase was less promising. It involved the initially unsuccessful effort at hybridising the Japonica and Indica varieties. The objective, writes Gangadharan, ‘was to transfer the high yielding ability and response to fertilisers that characterise the Japonicas into local Indica varieties which are adapted to local conditions of culture and to the prevalent diseases and pests. Japan had used chemical fertilisers from the beginning of this century andJaponicas showed a response under Japanese conditions whereas the Indicas had not been cultivated under high fertility conditions.’
Only four successes were reported from this programme. The problem was that the Japonicas were both photo-period and temperature sensitive and additionally the seed had been brought from some of the coldest regions of Japan. When these varieties were planted in the tropical environment, they not only gave different but negative results. The introduction of the Philippines semi-dwarf varieties put an abrupt end to this line of research. Later the CRRI imported seed from the milder, temperate region of Japan. This time the efforts were successful but IRRI’s control over the rice research programme would effectively keep these efforts out of circulation, and science.
Which brings us to the third phase inaugurated by IRRI, and also the subject of this investigation.
IRRI was established on the basis of a note written by a Rockefeller official in 1959. Both the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations put up the money to start the institute, which was established formally in 1960 and began functioning fully in 1962. From start to finish, the CRRI would be no match in an unequal battle all the way.
The IRRI officials would literally buy rice scientists from different parts of Asia, and take over most of the outstanding talent simply because of IRRI’s ability to offer them salaries not only in dollars, but out of proportion to what they received in their own countries, and its ability to provide accommodation, and opportunities for educating staff children anywhere in the world.
By 1966, IRRI had come up with its first success. It is important to emphasise that whereas the CRRI had nine objectives governing its research, IRRI had only one. IR8 was a semi-dwarf rice variety, the result of a cross between an Indonesian tall rice plant and a Taiwanese dwarf variety. Distinctive of the plant was its ability to stand heavy fertilisation, and heavier yields, without lodging. (It also inaugurated a vast market for American fertilisers all over Asia). Without water, fertilisers and pesticides, IR8 did not perform extraordinarily better than the older rices. The disadvantage of the latter was solely that they tended to lodge when given extra nutrients, thus leading to losses.
The CRRI had, as mentioned earlier, been working with identical material and in fact had isolated dwarf varieties from Taiwan that were free from susceptibility to viral attacks. When the news arrived that the Indian government was planning, at the insistence of IRRI experts, to import the new IRRI seed in bulk into India, Dr Richharia, CRRI director, objected.
The government seems to have found Dr Richharia’s advice contradictory: earlier, it had been informed by the CRRI that Taichung varieties could provide a breakthrough in rice production; now Richharia was objecting to their import. The contradiction stemmed from the fact that bureaucrats and politicians have little grounding in genetics: they did not seem to understand that seed tested after numerous adaptive trials over many seasons, and then selected and multiplied, is radically different from seed imported in bulk from abroad. The latter, because of its mixed population, will contain seed carrying disease and which might be susceptible to pests. IRRI at that point of time was too keen to get its seeds grown on a large scale before decisions could be reversed, to subscribe to caution of any kind.
It was also the tremendous leverage that the Americans maintained over the Indian science establishment that enabled IRRI to ride roughshod over the protests of Indian scientists. Though the country was allegedly nonaligned in politics, most of its policies in science and economics were largely under the control of Americans. Thus the community development programme originated with Albert Myers. Douglas Emswinger of the Ford Foundation once boasted that he had better access to Pandit Nehru than any of the latter’s cabinet colleagues. Dr Richharia first came to know of his appointment to the director’s post at the CRRI from an American, Prof Claim. Dr. Robert Chandler, director of IRRI, reported directly to Agriculture Minister, C. Subramanam.
Chandler, in his recent account of the IRRI, An Adventure in Applied Science, has admitted that he had never seen a rice plant when he took over as director of IRRI. Yet, it was at his instigation, and because he had been castigated once by Dr Richharia for bringing rice seed into the country without a quarantine certificate, thus violating the country's laws, that the government decided to retire Dr Richharia, at that time one of the world's leading rice specialists.
Once IR8 and TN1 had become fairly established within India and all rice research oriented solely in the direction of semi-dwarfs using these parents, IRRI would naturally retain the lead, with large doses of political clout and advertising to make up for shortfalls in science. Rice scientists from Asia, if they wished to make a career, would have to support the IRRI research direction.
One additional significant factor that seems to have made an impact on the government at the time were the disastrous harvests of 1965 and 1966. What weighed with the Government of India (and also former President Marcos of the Phillipines) in choosing to uncritically deploy IRRI technology, was that the latter, for the first time, offered an almost automatic method of raising food that would place it within the control of the administration, taking it out of the hands of the peasants. If the government concentrated its resources in a few, well-endowed areas, using the HYV package, it could produce a sizeable output of food that would be independent of the whims of the monsoons. Again, the very method of agriculture, based on expensive inputs, required credit, and this assured the government that a good proportion of the grain thus produced would end up in the market, in the hands of government procurement agencies, and could then be used to keep prices stable in the cities.
Two major developments totally ruined the prospect of a promised land overflowing with rice and honey. The first was economic: the oil price hike of 1973 effectively limited a fertiliser-based agricultural strategy. It would make Green Revolution inputs so expensive that they would have to be subsidised by Governments, if farmers were not to give up using them forever. The second major problem, also irreversible, arrived in the form of disease and insects. The growing of varieties with a narrow genetic base (all with the same dwarfing gene, dee-gee-wo-gen), upset insect ecology and invented entire generations of pests. Dr Swaminathan has himself made quite a shameless summary of the fate of IRRI varieties, in a recent issue of Mazingira. He writes:
‘It is difficult to develop a variety that has a useful life of more than five to six years in tropical environments unless genes for horizontal (more stable) resistance are identified and incorporated. Year round rice cultivation causes disease and insect organisms to occur in overlapping generations and increases the chance of new races or biotypes developing; thus new pest problems continuously arise. Variety IR8, released in 1966, suffered from serious attacks of bacterial blight (BB) in 1968 and 1969. In 1970 and 1971, outbreaks of rice tungro virus (RTV) destroyed IR8 yields throughout the Philippines. The IR20 variety, released in 1969, had BB resistance and RTV tolerance, and it replaced IR8 in 1971 and 1972. However, outbreaks of brown plant hopper (BPH) and grassy stunt virus (GSV) in 1973 destroyed IR20 in most Philippine provinces. Variety IR26, with BPH resistance, was released in 1973 and became the dominant Philippine variety in 1974 and 1975. In 1976, a new BPH biotype attacked it and IR36 was released; it had a different gene for resistance to the new BPH biotype and replaced IR26 within one year. It is now the dominant variety in the Philippines. Its resistance to BPH has held till recently, but it is now being threatened by ragged stunt and wilted stunt (both new diseases), as well as by another new biotype of BPH (No. 3).
In India, the situation was equally horrifying. All of Dr Richharia's predictions had come true. ‘The introduction of high-yielding varieties,’ noted a task force of eminent rice breeders, ‘has brought about a marked change in the status of insect pests like gall midge, brown planthopper, leaf folder, whore maggot, etc. Most of the HYVs released so far are susceptible to major pests with a crop loss of 30 to 100 per cent... Most of the HYVs are the derivatives of TN1 or IR8 and therefore, have the dwarfing gene known as dee-gee-wo-gen. The narrow genetic base has created alarming uniformity, causing vulnerability to diseases and pests. Most of the released varieties are not suitable for typical uplands and lowlands which together constitute about 75 per cent of the total rice area of the country.’
The IRRI counter-strategy against the pests involved breeding of varieties, with genes for resistance to such pests, taken from wild relatives of the rice plant and its traditional cultivars. All of a sudden it seemed critical that massive efforts be made to make as complete a collection of the older varieties: many of the traditional Indicas were found to be important donors for resistance. Gene incorporation strategy, in other words, required vast germplasm resources, most of which were to be found in India. The recruitment of Dr M S Swaminathan would be instrumental in the task of collection.
In India, again, Dr Richharia stood in the way.
After he had been retired from service at Chandler's insistence, Richharia had gone to the Orissa High Court, where for three years, alone, he fought a legal battle that ruined his family, disrupted the education of his children, and brought tremendous strains on his wife's health. The legal battle was successful, for in 1970, the Court ordered his reinstatement as director of the CRRI. He had redeemed his honour.
In the meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh government had appointed Dr Richharia as an agricultural advisor, and the rice man set about his disrupted rice work once again, with his usual zeal. Within the space of six years, he had built up the infrastructure of a new rice research institute at Raipur. Here, this extraordinarily gifted and imaginative rice scientist maintained over 19,000 varieties of rice in situ on a shoestring budget of Rs. 20,000 per annum, with not even a microscope in his office-cum-laboratory, situated in the neighbourhood of cooperative rice mills. His assistants included two agricultural graduates and six village level workers, the latter drawing a salary of Rs.250 per month. Richharia had created, practically out of nothing, one of the most extraordinary living gene banks in the world, and provided ample proof of what Indian scientists are capable of, if they are given proper encouragement.
An attack of leaf blight that devastated the corn crop of the US in 1970, and which had resulted from the extensive planting of hybrids that shared a single source of cytoplasm, and the continuous attacks on IRRI varieties, impelled IRRI to sponsor a Rice Genetic Conservation Workshop in 1977. Swaminathan attended it as an ‘observer’. The report of that workshop begins with the statement: ‘The founders of IRRI showed great foresight when in 1960-61 they planned the establishment of a rice germplasm bank.’ Nonsense. The certified aims and objects for the institute merely talk of a collection of the world'sliterature on rice. The workshop, being held 17 years after the establishment of IRRI, indicated that the germplasm problem was becoming important only now.
After the workshop, IRRI's covetous gaze fell on Richharia’s 19,000 varieties at the Madhya Pradesh Rice Research Institute (MPRRI). Not only had Richharia now uncovered a fascinating world of traditional rices, some of which produced between 8-9 tonnes per hectare – better than the IRRI varieties – he had also discovered dwarf plants without the susceptible dwarfing gene of the IRRI varieties. His extension work among the farmers would soon begin to pose a direct challenge to IRRI itself.
IRRI staff members journeyed to Raipur and asked for his material. Still moulded in the old scientific tradition, he refused because he had not studied the material himself. He was decidedly against any proposal for ‘exchange’, for this could only mean giving up his uncontaminated varieties for IRRI's susceptible ones.
So the IRRI did the next best thing: it got the MPRRI shut down!
The ICAR floated a scheme for agricultural development in Madhya Pradesh, particularly for rice. The World Bank contributed Rs.4 crores. The condition laid down was: close down the MPRRI, since it would lead to a ‘duplication of work.’ At a special meeting of the MPRRI Board, Madhya Pradesh's chief secretary who was not a trustee, was present. He had been earlier connected with the Ford Foundation. A resolution was passed closing down the Institute, and the rice germplasm passed over to the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (JNKVV), whose vice-chancellor, Sukhdev Singh, also joined the IRRI board of trustees. Scientists were sent to IRRI for training in germplasm transfer, and Richharia's team was disbanded.
This time too, they locked Dr. Richharia's rooms and took away all his research papers.
On June 4, 1982, Dr M N Shrivastava, rice breeder, JNKVV, wrote to P S Srinivasan, the IRRI liaison officer, addressed it care of Ford Foundation, New Delhi, enclosing two sets of material as requested by T. T. Chang of IRRI: ‘First set (264 accessions) is from our early duration collection and second set (170 samples) is part of those varieties which were identified to be popular with the farmers of Madhya Pradesh and Dr R H Richharia, former director of MPRRI, purified them and recommended replacing originals with these purified versions.’
But with Richharia out of the fray, nature herself now jumped into the ring. It responded with the necessary mutations, and began to lay low the new pest resistant varieties, rendering even the strategy of gene incorporation, of temporary utility. And then, in a fashion that only those with some respect for nature's awesome ways would understand, it delivered the coup de grace.
The distinctive success of the HYVs lay in their being short stemmed, able to stand heavy nitrogen applications without lodging, when compared with the older varieties. The incorporation of more and more genes from traditional cultivars not only passed on resistance characters, but also the tendency to lodge. Ergo, modern varieties began to lose their non-lodging character, the main advantage they had against the older cultivars. Research Highlights for 1983, an IRRI publication, observes:
‘Modern rices produce high grain yields with large amounts of applied nitrogen. However, heavy applications increase lodging, which reduces yields. Additionally, as higher levels of insect pest and disease resistance have been bred into modern semi-dwarf varieties, lodging resistance has tended to decline.’
The green revolution in rice had begun to involute.
What then have been the ‘achievements’ of such corrupt and politically naive science? (One set of all IRRI germplasm has been sent to Fort Collins, the maximum security installation in the US, without the permission of the Indian government). Has such science achieved any of its declared aims? Bharat Dogra summed it up:
‘Starting from just five million hectares in 1970-71, over 18 million hectares or nearly half the area of (rice) has now been brought under the HYVs programme till 1982-83... Therefore, this crop must have received a substantial share of the benefit of the overall increase in irrigation and the increase in the overall consumption of NPK fertilisers. However, compared to the increase in the area under HYVs and the increase in fertilisers and irrigation, the production of rice has increased to a lesser extent. During the period mentioned above (1970-71 to 1982-83), the production of rice has gone up from 42.23 million tonnes to 46.48 million tonnes. Assuming the production of non-HYVs did not experience any increase at all and all the difference in rice production was on HYVs land, we get an increase in production of about 4 million tonnes as a result of extension of HYVs programme to nearly 13 million hectares of land. In other words, an increase of 0.31 tonnes was achieved with HYV per hectare. This is a relatively small accomplishment which could have been easily achieved even without the expensive HYV programme and its infrastructure by making better use of village-based resources.’
A 33-member official working group headed by K C S Acharya, additional secretary in the ministry of agriculture, has determined that the growth rate of rice production after the Green Revolution has been less when compared with the pre-Green Revolution period.
Millions of hectares of rice are now routinely devastated by BPH and other pests and no compensation is available to farmers who are induced to take to such ‘modernised’ agriculture. Such pest infestations have been introduced into the Indian environment. The IRRI officials knew what they were doing, and they did it for the cheap objective of wanting to assert IRRI primacy.
The unmonitored, hasty introduction of HYVs of seed has led to genetic erosion of tremendous proportions, as hundreds of priceless traditional varieties have been lost to mankind. It is only in the eighties that the IRRI has begun to acknowledge the true worth of the older varieties. What a curious circle of events!
The IRRI inaugurated the revolution in rice by holding in ridicule the basis of traditional agriculture – the traditional cultivar, itself the result of close trial and error experimentation by farmers over decades – and sought to displace it with its own product, the HYV. However, since the HYV was not closely adapted to any environment, it required extensive support, having attracted pest infestations on a mass scale. Protection could only come from the same traditional cultivars, which at the time of HYV propagation, had been loaded with abuse.
Is there a way out: how can such a state of science exist nearly 40 years after independence? Why does the director of the CRRI continue to remain as a trustee of the IRRI, which he has been since 1979? To continue and deepen the dependence? The IRRI has no future, politically, and also as far as research is concerned. Politically, its future was tied to former President Marcos, and Filipino farmers and scientists had already begun to demand its closure. As far as research is concerned, the IRRI has no new ideas, and is now eagerly visiting China to learn Chinese techniques of growing hybrid rice, the next frontier in rice yield enhancement.
The CRRI has ample talent to match Chinese science. It has still vital access to hundreds of indigenous cultivars (a recent count of rice collection centres indicated that there were about 44,000 varieties, whereas the IRRI has 70,000). What then should be done?
First, the CRRI should be upgraded to international standards, for that is the only sure guarantee of the funds it needs, and which it has been deprived of, ever since Indian politicians decided to back IRRI science. Today, the CRRI germplasm unit does not have even a jeep to operate its collection of rice cultivars.
Second, all further export of rice germplasm to IRRI should be banned, since germplasm is part of our national heritage, and its preservation is enjoined by the Constitution in the chapter on Fundamental Duties. Third, steps should be taken to gradually replace IRRI varieties, and all those having IRRI parents, with productive indigenous varieties in the fields. This is already happening in the Philippines: farmers are exchanging old varieties with each other, disowning IRRI seeds, aptly described as ‘seeds of imperialism’ and ‘seeds of sabotage.’
There seems to have been some awareness at the level of the government that the rice revolution had been grounded, due to environmental and economic factors. The late Prime Minister, Mrs Gandhi, had asked Dr Richharia for a rice production increase plan. After he submitted it, he heard no more about it. After an article by Dom Moraes on Richharia, the M. P. Government hastily set about attempting to find some funds to ask the latter to resume his work. Now that proposal has been scotched by the same forces that once got the MPRRI to close down.
More than 25 years have passed in this costly, wasteful, environmentally unsound, flirtation with the exogene. The sorry and sad record only serves to underline the principle – despite our continuing mesmerisation by western science – that for genuine development of any worthwhile kind, the indigene is still the best gene.
(ஜேக்கப் நல்லித்தானம் என்கிற இவன் பெயர் ‘Madagascar’ method retains the ‘organic’ prove Bilaspur farmers கட்டுரையில் ஜேக்கப் நத்தானியேல் எனக் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டிருப்பதை அலைபேசியில் தெரிவித்தேன். சிரித்தபடி பெயரில் என்ன இருக்கிறது என்றான். கட்டுரை வந்திருப்பதே நான் சொல்லித்தான் அவனுக்குத் தெரிய வந்தது)
ம். நாமும் இருக்கிறோம் நம் பெயர் தாங்கிய அட்டையைத் தலைமேல் பிடித்தபடி.
The IRRI officials would literally buy rice scientists from different parts of Asia, and take over most of the outstanding talent simply because of IRRI’s ability to offer them salaries not only in dollars, but out of proportion to what they received in their own countries, and its ability to provide accommodation, and opportunities for educating staff children anywhere in the world.