In 2004, ThePrint Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta interviewed eminent agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan on NDTV’s Walk The Talk, after the latter was appointed chairman of the National Farmers Commission.
The panel’s terms of references included making farming more attractive to educated youth and formulating a medium-term strategy for food and nutrition security in India, among others.
Swaminathan, who passed away Thursday, spearheaded India’s Green Revolution. In this interview, he spoke about the challenges facing Indian agriculture and the need to look at it as the “pride of the country”.
Here is the full transcript of the interview, edited for clarity.
Shekhar Gupta (SG): I will not go so far as to say that if there’s food on your plate today, you have to thank my guest for it. But it will be no exaggeration if I said that, if most of India’s 1 billion people have food in their bellies, and if India is a food-surplus country, an exporting country, you have to thank my guest for it — Dr M.S. Swaminathan, ‘father of the Green Revolution’.
Welcome to Walk The Talk.
M.S. Swaminathan (MS): Thank you very much, Shekhar ji. Well, you should say the farmers of India, not me, are responsible for (it).
SG: Well, I believe you enabled them, but you know, you talk about the farmers of India. This is 40 years after the Green Revolution actually began — when the seed was planted. And somehow the public discourse is as if our farmer is where he was in the 60s.
MS: This is true. This is very true.
SG: But why this feeling?
MS: See, the mindset towards agriculture, unfortunately, remains the same, almost from colonial times, when we thought agriculture is a profession where people have to just produce food for the urban population. But today, agriculture is the backbone of our livelihood, security of jobs, of income, for 70 percent of our population, and also the very basis of our national sovereignty.
The multi-dimensional nature of agriculture has not yet sunk in, because we were living in what was called ship-to-mouth existence in the past.
SG: Ship-to-mouth, you say. But ship-to-mouth was in the 60s, when food came by ship, in fact, you waited. Wheat is coming from Mexico…
MS: All our godowns were near the ports. All our grain godowns were not in the heartland of agriculture.
SG: But then, Dr Swaminathan, after we became self-sufficient in food, could it be that we became complacent in the past 10 years or so about agriculture?
MS: To some extent, I would say there has been complacency because there were large grain stocks, and the government felt that is enough and people started talking about self-sufficiency, India has become a grain-exporting country, and so on. But I think the whole context of the larger role of agriculture, with nearly 40 percent of the rural people having no land at all, is that it has to provide them also with jobs, with income — that was forgotten.
And that is why we see the paradox today, what foreigners call — grain mountains and hungry millions. We have the paradox of being one of the very dynamic agricultural countries in the world; at the same time, we have the unenviable reputation of having the largest number of undernourished children, women and men. I always feel so very sad that we must be in that. We don’t want that recognition. We should be number one in many areas, but not in the number of people who are undernourished.
SG: So that’s what you see as one of your challenges as the chairman of the new National Commission for Farmers?
MS: The challenge is that we must now look upon agriculture in the real context of looking at the problem of income, jobs, apart from food security and livelihood, and also export earnings. We want agriculture to be the largest private-sector enterprise in our country. Over 600 million people are in agriculture. People don’t realise when you talk about private-sector enterprise… the largest single private-sector enterprise is agriculture.
And when I say agriculture, I use the larger term: Crops, animals, horticulture, fisheries, forestry, agro-processing, and so on. Dairying and the whole area, land- and water-based occupations of various kinds. We must change the mindset — the pre-Independence mindset — and look upon agriculture today as the pride of our country.
Also Read: ‘Transformed lives of millions, more than a scientist’: Tributes for MS Swaminathan celebrate legacy
SG: As a wealth creator, as a job creator, or as a food-giver?
MS: All three. We also want food. We are over 1 billion people. And we can’t really import food. I have often said importing food in a predominantly agricultural country is like importing unemployment.
SG: How would you elaborate that? Importing food is like importing unemployment…
MS: The reason is, 70 percent of our people — even by the 2001 census — live in rural areas. For the majority of them, the occupation is different kinds of farming — crop husbandry, animal husbandry and so on. Now, if you depress prices by getting food from outside… even today, most of our farmers say agriculture is no longer profitable because the input costs are high, the output is still low, and productivity is low.
And, therefore, I think we should think of jobs for Indians as the fundamental bottom line of all of our development work.
SG: And somehow the feeling is that it’s the industry that creates jobs not agriculture?
MS: Industry is now really leading to jobless growth. That job-led growth can only come from agriculture. In modern industry, a good industrialist measures progress by downsizing.
SG: Or industries are linked to agriculture.
MS: That is true. That’s what the Chinese did. When they started their reforms. They started in agriculture, not in industry. They started from rural areas, about 24 years ago, the reform in agriculture, but when they started reform, they looked at two kinds of people, one for whom they can give land because land is socially owned, the other who will have to depend on non-farm employment. So, they had rural township enterprises, where the people who have no land can be employed in skilled jobs. Otherwise what will happen — we see in our own country here, people who are transplanting paddy and so on, these women who are transplanting will hardly get that $1 per day for the World Bank’s 45 rupees, less than 45.
SG: And this is the heart of Tamil Nadu, which is by no means the least developed or the most backward state. There are states much more backward.
MS: You are right. It is a progressive state. Like all states, farmers have three major problems, one is credit, the other is water, the third is market, but these are really the three pillars, you have to have credit. The poorer the man, you need to have credit to buy goods, I mean, inputs, seeds and so on. You have to have water. Without water, nothing can be done and, thirdly, we must have a market for the produce, because some produce they will keep for their own consumption, the rest of it will have to go for cash income.
SG: So, sir, what do you see as your main challenge? All of us are looking up to you to create the second Green Revolution.
MS: Well, the Green Revolution means improvement of production through productivity improvement, because green is the colour of chlorophyll. We all live on this world as guests of green plants because, without green plants, animals cannot survive, we cannot survive. The revolution was not an evolutionary jump but a quantum jump in production. For example, wheat production — we were producing 6 million tonnes in 1947, our farmers produce over 80 million tonnes now. So we made progress.
SG: Six to 80. So, you would say our population has grown maybe about four times and food production has grown about 14-13.
MS: Food production on the whole has kept above the pace of population, from about the 80s onwards.
Our population growth — although the 90s have seen a deceleration in the growth rate, we should not be complacent there, because our population is still growing at more than the desired rate. Certain parts of India have not yet had the demographic transition to low birth and low death rate. So, we have to look at population as the number one issue.
The population-supporting capacity of the land should not be exceeded.
But when you talk about challenges in agriculture, I would say the number one challenge is productivity improvement of small farms. Most of our farms are small holdings, one hectare and below, two hectares and below — the smaller the farm, more is the need for marketable surplus cash and productivity improvement.
But productivity improvement has to be done without any ecological harm to land, water salinisation — as has happened in some of our intensively cultivated areas like the Punjab-Haryana region, where there are secondary, tertiary problems, as they call it, because of the over-exploitation of natural resources (which is) unsustainable exploitation.
So, when I say what we need in India is an evergreen revolution, it means Green Revolution plus ecology, productivity in perpetuity, not spurts.
SG: But sir, what is happening now is that we were complacent for a long time about agriculture. And now we seem to be either reacting in panic or with a good heart. And this idea, the finance minister said on this show, that he will flood the countryside with cheap credit. Is that the way to go?
MS: Well, credit is important but credit also has to be linked with proper insurance, the health insurance of the person, the crop insurance, because they can’t take risks.
Agriculture is an occupation that is still not under our control. It is not like growing in a greenhouse. So, one day, there may be floods. I have seen excellent crops in Punjab today. (But) The hailstorm would come at night and flatten it. So what can I do? This is why we say, seeing is not believing for farmers. But harvesting and taking their crop home — when they reach home — only then it’s believing.
Agriculture suffers from many risks. And we do not have an effective mechanism of insulating our farmers from that kind of risk, which is beyond their control.
SG: So, essentially, if you look at the broad situation, how is the challenge today different from the challenge in the 60s? The 60s was humiliation and hunger.
MS: The 60s was ship-to-mouth existence. You know, we were told by all persons — some people have used the triage hypothesis, when a medical doctor in a war classifies patients, those who cannot be saved, those who can wait, and those beyond redemption, and they classified our country as ‘beyond redemption, there’s no use in attending to this country at all’. And a million books have been written about it.
And it was very humiliating for us to go looking for food abroad
It is very humiliating when you go abroad, you’ve to hang your head in shame. The late Bharat Ratna (former Union agriculture minister) C. Subramaniam experienced it; he has recorded it in his book. Similarly, (former Union agriculture minister) Babu Jagjivan Ram, with whom I went once to talk to one secretary of agriculture of the United States. Babuji just got up and walked out.
Also Read: Chromosome sketches, rare photos, handwritten notes — glimpses from the life of MS Swaminathan
SG: What happened?
MS: That man started talking all kinds of things, you know, ‘Mr Minister, you are underestimating hunger in your country’ and so on. So he said, ‘Mr Secretary, I came to buy wheat, and not to discuss with you other problems of my country’ and just got up and went away. And I was very proud. I was very proud of Babu Jagjivan Ram and the way in which he handled (the situation), but you see, we had to compromise. This is why our national sovereignty is important, now we can have an independent foreign policy because you have some food.
SG: And Pokhran. Pokhran would not have happened if you didn’t have food security..
MS: Pokhran could not have happened at all. If you were importing 10-15 million tonnes of wheat as we did in 1965-66, Pokhran would just not have been possible. But Pokhran came in 74.
SG: Just after initial food security…
MS: 20 million tonnes in reserves…
SG: So, how is this essentially different? I would like to say that in the 60s, the challenge was filling our bellies, in the 21st century, the challenge is to create surpluses…?
MS: Surpluses for our own need, for the export market. But above all, you know, the current challenge is how to give more income to the farmers.
SG: No, surplus to the farmer’s hands because he also wants to send his children to an engineering school and medical college…
MS: Surplus in terms of cash income. He needs cash income, and you also require more skilled employment, because our young — the farmer’s son or daughter — is not going to live on a farm. But if farming is always, you know, associated with drudgery and tedious, I think today, we must become more knowledge-intensive, farming must become more knowledge-intensive, we must give them the facilities of modern technology.
SG: But giving them free means is not the answer?
MS: Free is not the answer because free will become inefficient. In the sense, you don’t appreciate anything which is free. If you give free water, for example, pumping water, I think it will be used inefficiently. Because if I know I have to pay for the water, I will use it in a different way than when I know I don’t have to pay at all.
SG: But the politician’s instinct is to give free power in Andhra Pradesh?
MS: Political leaders, unfortunately — some of them, not all — take a short-term view of these matters. But in the longer term, our policies must be in the well-being of the farming family, not in the short-term alone.
SG: So, free power itself is not a good idea?
MS: Free power may be necessary under certain circumstances. But suppose there has been a very severe drought and suddenly there has been very good rain and many poor people do not have the money to buy the electricity, you can do the free part. But these should be used in a way that it helps the farmer and, in the long-term production point of view, it also helps the ecology of the farm.
SG: But sir, are you in agreement with free power now in Andhra Pradesh, given the situation there?
MS: Well, they seem to have made an election promise and made an announcement. But I do hope these short-term steps will be reviewed in the long-term interests of not only the state, but to the farmers themselves. I should not commit long-term — what I call — ecocide, of losing the productivity of the land and so on. And excess use of water. We now know crops like rice, we can produce with much less water, if it is done economically.
SG: So if the farmer has to pay for it, if there’s a value to it, he’ll be more conscious?
MS: Anything which you buy with value, if I buy seeds, fertilizer, everything you know, when I pay money, then I’m very careful about its use. I look after it. This is the law of life everywhere, not only in farming.
SG: Dr Swaminathan, two things. One, in fact, the ‘R’ word and the ‘P’ word. Now, after this election, politicians have been scared of using the word reform. And it’s heartening that the two persons who have used it are (NCP chief and former agriculture minister) Sharad Pawar and you, and both of you have used it in the context of agriculture. So, this rural poverty — the challenge of addressing it, the state of the Indian farmer — is more reform the answer or less reform the answer?
And my second question, following that, how do you bring in more private sector and privatisation into farming? You said that farming is our most privatised sector.
MS: Private-sector enterprise…
First of all, Shekhar, let me answer the first question: Farming now requires more reform, not less reform, but informed reform. Reform which can lead us to progress, which can lead to the next step in our evolution of agriculture, which takes both the short-term and the long-term point of view. Not a very short-term view, because land and water, these are all capital. These are basic life-support systems, the land, the water, the biodiversity, look at these plants growing under no water. So, we have a very good biodiversity also in our country. So, we must look after them.
So, I would say, reform must be such that we can improve the well-being of farmers and the productivity of land in such a way that we can produce more and more. That means more and more knowledge-intensive farming.
I would say, the important elements of farming are: First is productivity improvement. Our average productivity is low in contrast to other countries, there is no (land) use in comparison with China. In China, most of the land is irrigated, our unirrigated land is still predominant. But the fact remains, I consider it to be a blessing that we still have an untapped production reservoir, because our population is high. So, we can immediately, even with technologies on the shelf, given the right policy framework, we can increase productivity straightaway.
Secondly, we must enhance or increase the profitability of agriculture that comes from the more efficient use of inputs, whether it is water, fertilizer, seed, or, in the case of animal husbandry, feed and breed, and so on.
SG: So, can this be done through more reform? What kind of reform? The interstate trade?
MS: We already discussed the pricing of the inputs. I would say, what we need in our country is not trade-distorting… what the WTO (World Trade Organization) will classify as trade-distorting subsidies, but life-giving support for farmers. These are two different things.
SG: Sir, because what we see here is the policy seems to be to pauperise the farmer and then make him beg for subsidies. And when he gets his subsidies, most of it is given away in bribes anyway. Subsidies ultimately go in the pocket of farmers.
MS: Many subsidies are not directly for farmers, it may be for consumers or it may be for the fertilizer factory and so on. And they say there are leakages in between…
SG: …Because most of the fertilizer subsidy actually goes to fertilizer producers not to the farmers.
MS: If I’m farming now, practically, I would be very happy if our basic infrastructure — proper roads, rural godown, particularly if I am producing perishable commodities, fruits and vegetables. We’re in the tropics, the losses are very high, I would require a proper godown and market price, like what has been done with milk. Milk is a good example, we are the number one producer of milk in the world. America is number two…
SG: We are number one in fruits now and number two in vegetables…
MS: Yes, we are number one or two in most of the products now…
SG: Also number one in malnutrition and hunger…
MS: That is a problem — stunted children and so on. This is why I said this dichotomy has to be removed and it can be removed only by greater attention to the agricultural sector. Because the modern industry is important, it can support agriculture. You asked about the private sector, the private sector has an important role. Some of them are playing that role in terms of assured marketing for some.
Farmers want assured and remunerative marketing. It is the best fertilizer to the farmer, like the fertilizer to the plant. Therefore, anybody in the private sector that helps in that contract, growing marketing, is very important.
Secondly, I think they can also provide much more knowledge and timely help. Our extension services have to be retold. You see they were developed for one set of purposes….
SG: But some of the idealism of the 60s disappeared, you know idealism that drove you, people like you to the Green Revolution.
MS: See, any country under stress, under a state of siege, that there is an idealism, there is a drive that is, you will say we shall overcome. We must do it.
SG: Tell me one last word. As a technocrat, have you sometimes felt frustrated? Lots of scientists are frustrated, they think they can make no difference. They know what to do, but nobody listens to them. How have you been more successful? If I look at your CV, I will take this whole programme, just mentioning the awards and honorary doctorates that you’ve had…
MS: They are all because of farmers who have done a great job, for me, and also my own students and colleagues. There is nothing in this world I think… I believe in the power of partnership. There is nothing one can do alone. But together we can do many things. That’s what we are shown in the case of agriculture, public policy by political leaders and administrative leaders, services by private industry, public sector and technology…
SG: But you said sometimes you have to marry technology with public policy.
MS: If you look at the science policy resolution of the Government of India… Jawaharlal Nehru was a great visionary, but nevertheless you will not see the word agriculture at all in it… science and agriculture. You will again read the 1958 science policy resolution. Well, if one word had been added along with agriculture — industry — it’d have been a wonderful statement. I pointed this out long ago…
SG: But you have been able, by the sheer force of personality, to bring it together.
MS: Partly by compulsion, partly by also the feeling… more and more that, if an enlightened leadership comes, they do understand. I think I would say Prime Minister Indira Gandhi understood the linkage between national sovereignty (and agriculture), because I recall the late Vikram Sarabhai and I once went to her soon after she took over and one of the first questions she asked is how soon we can build up a stock of 10 million tonnes. In that year, we were importing 10 million tonnes. So somewhere in her mind there was a feeling. So, there are Mr Subramaniam, Babu Jagjivan Ram, every one of them. Now, Sharad Pawar..
From that, now, I think our challenge is how to maybe double the incomes of our farmers so they can send their children to medical and engineering schools.
One way is we have to remove them from purely unskilled work, 40 rupees minimum wage, to more skilled work… like the fisherwoman you see today… are top technocrats. That is why we have created the National Virtual Academy where the fellows of the Academy are selected like the Indian National Science Academy, but they are grassroots…
SG: Well, Mr Swaminathan, we will need many, many more ideas like this. All of us, we should wish you all the very best. I think the first challenge that you will face is to make people like us aware of the importance and the value of agriculture. All the very best to you.
MS: Well, I will end as I began. If the mindset changes, and if we realise if agriculture goes wrong, nothing else will go right in this country, then it will be a great gain to our country or farmers or food security and our national security. Thank you very much.
Also Read: How MS Swaminathan, father of India’s Green Revolution, got GM crops ‘all wrong’