By K.N.Kumar
‘The synergy between technology and public policy made the first green revolution possible’, said Dr M.S. Swaminathan, in 2015 at a function organized in Delhi to commemorate the golden jubilee of the green revolution. A year later, the Hon’ble Prime Minister made a statement at Guwahati that the North-East could trigger the next Green Revolution in the country. There is no gainsaying that the country will benefit immensely if the North-eastern region (NER) develops. It is also undeniable that the ICAR will have to play a critical role, as the principal technology provider if such a Mission were to be ever conceptualized. But is the ICAR primed enough to take the North-eastern region (NER) to the next level?
I want this article to be seen as a critique and not as criticism. Criticism is judgmental and attempts to find fault, while critique gives a balanced perspective even when the drift is negative. The overall contribution of the ICAR to the nation is undeniably positive. As citizens of the country, we will need to acknowledge and appreciate the phenomenal work done by countless scientists who made us food-secure and gave us the room to focus on other pressing issues ahead of us. That said, it would also be necessary to scrutinize the ICAR’s functioning and its impact on the NER if for nothing else, to impel mid-course corrections and trigger structural reforms.
Many enlightened citizens of the region are concerned about the ICAR’s impact, or the lack of it on the NER, and some even say that its footprint is minimal, if not negligible. Is that so? Has the North-east missed the ICAR bus? This somewhat subtle implication that the NER has not received the benefits of the ICAR is based on a two-fold argument: (1) that the institutional presence of the ICAR in the region is not adequate to make any transformational impact on the region and (2) that the research prioritization of the ICAR is not in conformity to the region’s geography, topography, and socio-economic requirements. I want to analyze these two premises with facts in two articles.
The ICAR’s organizational structure and how it has ramified institutionally into the NER will broadly point us toward how effective it can ever be. The ICAR has 113 administrative units in the country. They come in various names and forms – 65 are defined as institutions – only one of which is in the NER (the North-eastern Regional Research Complex, Barapani). None of the 4 Deemed universities of the ICAR is in the NER. ICAR has 13 Directorates/Project Directorates – again, none in the NER. Of the 15 National Research Centres (NRC), four are in the NER. There is only one Central Agricultural University (CAU) at Imphal. The other one promised at Kyrdemkulai has been reneged. How can the ICAR ever significantly impact the NER’s agriculture and allied sectors with such limited and near non-existent institutional presence? That would be one fundamental and central question.
And, why do we require deeper presence of the ICAR in the NER? Because, mountain agriculture is qualitatively different from plains-centric agriculture. So, the research has to be specific to the needs of the hills. Of the nearly 40 lakh hectares under cultivation in the NER, 39 lakh hectares– (over 97%) are set aside for food-grain production. 85% of the cropped area is under Rice (that is, in the valleys). So if we seek to trigger any crops-based revolution, where will the additional land come from? Hills, obviously. But NER is one of the 36 biodiversity hotspots of the world. Preserving biodiversity will, therefore, be non-negotiable. So, it is a delicate and sensitive job to promote cultivation without destroying the diversity of flora and fauna. Unquestionably, mountain agriculture needs different technologies, crops, diverse approaches, and far more research sensitivity than currently rendered, even at a pan Indian level. The sub-Himalayan foothills from Arunachal to the Aravallis, Western Ghats, and the Eastern Ghats present different research challenges, and I don’t believe the ICAR has enough institutional presence to undertake such hills-specific research. How many institutions have been set up by the ICAR to research mountain agriculture? I could count six (out of the 113) – (1) Central Potato Research Institute (CPRI), Shimla, (2) Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture (CITH), Srinagar, (3) Indian Institute of Soil & Water Conservation (IISW), Dehradun (4) Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, (CPCRI), Kasargod, and (5) Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Samstha (VPKAS), Almora and of course, (6) the NE Regional research complex, Barapani.
North-east India is predominantly small farm agriculture. Small landholders (<2ha) constitute 76 per cent of the rural households and 82% of these small-holders rear livestock to supplement their livelihoods. 19% of the rural households in NER are landless and being the most disadvantaged of the population, rely heavily on livestock. Smallholders have more income and employment opportunities in livestock and fisheries production than in land-intensive crop production. Lesser the landholding more is the inclination of the people to move into the livestock and fisheries sectors.
And the Livestock sector is growing at a much faster clip than the crops sector. The crops sector grows at about 3.4%, while the livestock sector grows at 8.24%, and the contribution of livestock in the GVA (Gross Value Added) of the agriculture and allied sectors has now touched 28.63%. Yet, the livestock sector does not have either the policy or the financial or research support it deserves. The sector receives only about 12 per cent of the total public expenditure on agriculture and allied sectors, which is disproportionately small considering its contribution to agricultural GDP. Likewise, fish production in India has reached an all-time high of 14.16 million metric tonnes during 2019-20, contributing to 1.24 % of the total GDP and 7.28 per cent of the agricultural GDP. The fisheries sector is growing at an annual growth rate of 11%. NER is a water-rich region and accounts for 236 edible freshwater fish species.
Yet, despite the paramount importance of Livestock and Fisheries to the NER, hardly any impactful research is going on in the NER in either of these sectors. The DDG (Animal Sciences) and the DDG (Fisheries) of the ICAR report to the D.G. from the crop sciences division. How can a D.G. with a background in crop sciences be aware of the research priorities of the Animal Sciences and Fisheries? It is not about individual competence; it is about the structural flaw in the organization about which I am writing. If the carving out of a separate Department for Fisheries at the national level acknowledges the need to give exclusive attention to the Fisheries sector, why isn’t the same principle applied to fisheries research? Or, for that matter, to Animal sciences research?
Most original work of the ICAR generally focusses on crops and issues applicable to the national context and not specific to the NER. That is not to say that the ICAR in the region has done no work, but nothing so substantial happened as to believe that ICAR is now ready for take-off or trigger the next revolution. I am willing to stretch the argument deeper and provide a ground for unbundling the ICAR itself to let certain divisions like the Animal Sciences and Fisheries to unshackle themselves from the clutches of the crop sciences. Why aren’t there Indian Councils for Livestock Research and Fisheries Research in our country? Why are there turf wars between the ICAR and the Veterinary Council of India? Why should these two Government of India organizations go to courts to resolve even relatively minor issues? There are not many satisfactory answers to such questions.
Given the importance of the livestock, including Fisheries, to the NER, was it rocket science that the ICAR in the last 75 years did not realize the need to develop human resources in the region by establishing a central Livestock University to cater to the NER? The Government of Meghalaya recently decided to establish a Meghalaya State Veterinary, Dairy and Fishery Sciences University at Kyrdemkulai. It will become operational in two years. Because the ICAR/DARE never rose to the occasion, the state government now must stretch its limited resources to establish one such university that the NER could have immensely benefited had the ICAR decided to do it by itself.
The limited point is that the overall impact of the ICAR institutions in the region is perceivably minimal, and its research prioritization at the best of times, is indifferent. The notional physical presence and the unimpactful research outcomes point us toward some perfunctoriness in the NER. The inclination to expand the footprint too appears to be nominal. Tokenism won’t make any difference either to the emotions or to the livelihoods of the people. In my next article, I will place a few thoughts about the research prioritization of the ICAR. Or, the skew of it, or worse, the lack of it!
(The writer is Chairman, Meghalaya Farmers’ Empowerment Council)