Q: How do you rate the political understanding of science in India?
Not very highly. But now that I am a member of Rajya Sabha (the Upper House of Parliament), I try and use any political forum to spread the word. In a democracy it is very important to have political understanding of science.
Q: What efforts have you made to promote science among fellow MPs?
As an MP, I can prepare a private member's bill…not that these bills are taken very seriously. Yet one can sow some seeds of thought. I have been preparing a bill on climate change and agriculture, on what kind of public policies have to be in place to cope with this.
Q: What is the state of agricultural research in India?
Unfortunately, our universities do not do any research for the less privileged. In Vidarbha, for instance, we have a large agricultural university. Look at the state of science there, the region is a hot spot for farmer suicide cases. We have a Central Cotton Research Institute in Nagpur but when Bt cotton came to India, they failed to realise that while companies may concentrate on hybrids, public institutions must concentrate on variety.
Q: That brings us to the much debated introduction of genetically modified varieties of cotton in India.
Well, the simple reason why I insist on concentrating on variety of the seed is that it can be kept with the farmers while hybrids will have to be bought every year at Rs 1,500 per kg. Fortunately, at long last we have a very good variety now in a locally adapted strain called Bikaneri narma, itself a farmer's variety with some resistance to the pink bollworm.
Recently we saw the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee reject a number of varieties that they had approved just a day before because some data on goat feeding was missing. I find this inexcusable. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has a National Goat Research Institute and a dairy research body. They have more facilities than any other organisation. Why can't they learn how to fill up simple forms? If these cotton varieties were released, it would have been such a boon to the suicide farmers.
Q: Public research has its limitations everywhere.
First and foremost, public research in this country should know its clients. ICAR's clients are resource-poor farmers, the seed company's clients are resource-rich farmers.
To get around this, I had recommended the formation of a National Biotechnology Authority some time ago but the proposal is still doing the rounds of government corridors. International best practices are being compiled. The Prime Minister has asked the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) to provide the basic framework for an autonomous statutory national biotechnology regulatory authority, which will be professionally run with two wings – medical/pharmaceutical and agricultural/food biotechnology. This report again was given in May 2002. Hasn't it been a long time since?
Q. What in you opinion is the reason for this seeming lack of interest?
The government machinery is muddling through rudderless. There is no strong orientation in the government to solve these problems. Unless public research focuses on the resource-poor category of people and understand their problems, nothing will happen. Why is their productivity so poor? The Prime Minister keeps saying there's a big yield gap of Rs 25,000 crore between what can be achieved and what can't be. Unless we study the constraints — technological, economic and market-related — I don't think it is going to yield any result at all.
The government approach is also wrong because they call the poor 'beneficiaries'. Isn't it just the other way round?
Q. But the government has announced a number of programmes to ensure safe agriculture returns.
Yes, the Prime Minister has announced a package for the families of the suicide farmers. But this again is not demand-driven, it is supply driven. You have to respond to their felt needs rather than telling them: this is good for you. The package should have been developed in consultation with the families. They know where the shoe pinches. For example, they were given hybrid cows which need a lot of nutrition to give milk. Where's the fodder? These poor families can't feed their own children, how will they feed hybrid cows?
Agriculture is the riskiest profession in the world. Only four per cent of our farmers have insurance. What do the rest do?
Q. You are suggesting a complete overhaul in the government policy on agriculture.
I think this country's policies still ignore the wisdom of its people. There is no way of upgrading their livelihoods and augmenting incomes without the use of appropriate technology.
In developing countries, we need 'Do ecology' not 'Don't ecology'. 'Don't ecology' is for the developed world. You can tell the Americans: don't go in such a big car, don't let out so much emissions, because they have already reached a high. Here, ecology is 'Do ecology' which means increasing livelihood, work and income securities.
When Lord Macaulay addressed the British Parliament before the East India Company decided to come here, he said he had travelled along the length and breadth of India but could not see a single beggar or thief. That was just two and a half centuries ago. This morning, when I was travelling from the airport, I saw young women with small children in their arms begging at each traffic point. I thought to myself,"Where have we come from Macaulay's India?"
India is a land of opportunity. And we have to have policies that take into account this immense gap between poverty of people and prosperity of nature.
