|
|
Honey bee publish details |
| More
Information |
|
|
| Name |
Anil K Gupta |
|
|
| Title |
An Appeal to the Scientists |
|
|
| Abstract |
Almost all professional societies of different agricultural disciplines have tried in recent times to address issues related to sustainability . This has also meant a slight increase in the appreciation of the wisdom of the farmer. In some instances they have used resources in a highly sustainable manner. And yet, there are hardly any formal research programmes in different disciplines on the subject. The rhetoric of sustainability remains to be matched with serious restructuring of scientific discourse in agriculture.
In his speeches to the governing board of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in 1952-53, Dr. K. M. Munshi had stressed the need for taking sustainability issues into account while pursuing various research programmes (Honey Bee, no.2 vol.1). Why is it that the research establishment of one of the most ancient civilisations lost interest in understanding science underlying sustainable practices so that value could be added to make them even more efficient and effective?
Scientists ought to reflect on this lapse and offer suggestions on how to redress this flaw. An attempt was made by ICAR way back in 1964 to study outstanding agricultural practices. Mr.Lal Singh headed the central team in India to list the outstanding agricultural practices in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madras, Gujarat and Punjab. He noted, “The central team undertook this task with a certain amount of apprehension and uncertainty about the result of its efforts. There is a vast treasure of outstanding agricultural practices in different parts of the country which has, for long, remained hidden from the farmers of other states and which deserve to be unearthed for the benefit of agriculture as a whole in India”. Readers will recognize the strains of the Honey Bee philosophy in this 30 year old statement. We could easily add that this need for lateral learning among farmers exists not only in India, but among farmers all around the world - a goal Honey Bee is trying to pursue through its local language versions. This was much before the phrases, ‘Farmer Participatory Research’, ‘Farming Systems Research’ and ‘Farmer back to Farmer’ had even been coined by the scientists abroad. It is not surprising that Indian scientists (as perhaps is the case with the scientists in most developing countries) are totally ignorant of the farmers’ wisdom of centuries in some cases and contemporary explorations in other cases. But most of them are familiar with the terminologies developed in the West and popularised by the donor agencies.
The Central Team observed many interesting practices, some of which had become fads. For instance, the team noted (a) intensive use of paddy field bunds for growing green manuring crops in situ, (b) possibility of growing green manuring plants in wastelands for preparing of compost with particular reference to the possibility of growing Ipomoea cernia for mass scale compost preparation, (c) growing green manuring crops along with the main crops, (d) transplantation of sorghum, bajara, ragi in rainfed areas, (e) agro horticultural combinations, (f) life support for mango grafts, (g) manuring and cultivation of crops in permanent furrows for several decades to economise on the use of manure and cultivation costs, etc.
Readers will recognise that many of these practices are part of what is called as modern technology, such as agro-forestry and agro-horticulture. Mr.Lal Singh however, cautioned that there were some practices which appeared unrealistic. He advised his readers to be dispassionate in evaluating these practices and added, “There is nothing like giving a fair trial to any new practice with open mind”. I wish scientists will heed this advice. Mr.Lal Singh concluded the preface of the report by inviting agricultural experts from foreign countries like USA and Japan to demonstrate their best methods and practices in Indian condition. He felt, “It is essential that the best in agriculture must be found out and brought to the notice of every farmer in the country”. It is a tragedy that during the era of ‘lab to land’ which continues to some extent even today, learning from and among farmers across different regions and countries has been neglected.
The Central Team noted many interesting and sustainable technologies besides that mentioned above. In East Godavari, even though sufficient moisture was available, the report says, the planting of seedlings of second crop of paddy was postponed to middle of February so as to save the crop from the effect of stem borer. A practice called as Haud and Dhim (called Besauni in Eastern India) was noted in the Kangra valley of Punjab in which the entire paddy field was puddled (when the seedlings were nine inches tall) to control weeds. Later, gap filling was done. In the Godavari district of Andra Pradesh, the paddy field was allowed to be nibbled by cattle so as to prevent lodging and to improve the yield. Nibbling by cattle was similar to nibbling by sheep in gram field in Haryana which we noted in early 80s as a practice used to promote lateral branching.
There are a large number of such practices which we will be serialising in Honey Bee. We request readers to reflect on the reasons why the scientists and planners do not learn from these insights. We also hope that readers from other countries would dig out such studies from their own regions and send us either the reports or their reviews: these may help in rejuvenating the interest of scientific community and policy planners in pursuit of excellence by farmers through their own innovations. One important aspect which Lal Singh stressed upon seems to have been ignored by scientists. He asked for a ‘fair trial to any new practice with an open mind’. In the light of the challenge posed by threats to sustainability, the very norms or parameters of evaluation by scientists may have to be modified. For instance, if an indigenous plant protection practice provides only 30 per cent protection as against 80 per cent by a chemical pesticide, does it need to be considered for recommendation or not? Imagine that this 30 per cent effectiveness in controling pests is achieved at a negligible cost. Or, after achieving this effectiveness, the population of the pests gets controlled by the predators. Further, a 30 per cent control in one year may be followed by an increasing rate of effectiveness in succeeding years due to build up of natural predators. Besides this, the adverse consequences through residues of pesticides for the environment as well as for the consumer may be eliminated. There are many cases where scientists as well as extension workers have ignored technologies which do not show spectacular results in the short run but which are nevertheless highly sustainable, and cost effective in the long run and environment friendly too. The ecological economic considerations may reveal the true worth of technology much better than purely a socio-economic analysis. Scientists may have been constrained so far by their methods, resources and traditions. It is time that we take a fresh look at our ways of analysing and evaluating alternative technologies so that producers, workers and consumers feel safe and satisfied in the long run.
There are many ways in which scientists can collaborate with us: (a) they can take up on-station or on-farm research on the practices published in Honey Bee pertaining to their area of interest and send us communications about the scope for value addition, (b) they can encourage post graduate students to take up thesis problems on specific aspects of farmers innovations for identifying the scientific principles underlying the practices and also exploring the possibility of adapting practice of one region for another, (c) comment upon the practices based on published literature but clearly acknowledging lack of knowledge in cases where literature is silent, (d) identify areas where farmers wisdom may be in contradiction with the scientific understanding, (e) suggest areas where scientists are willing to work with the farmer innovators, members of Honey Bee network.
We did a study of post-graduate research trends in five disciplines including Agronomy, Economics, Extension, etc., in 1985. It revealed that the skills we were developing among young graduates would hardly equip them for the challenges of sustainablity in coming decades when they would occupy the positions of responsibility. Three out of every four theses in agronomy, for instance, dealt with fertiliser use and almost ninety per cent of these dealt with chemical fertilisers. So much for the concern on sustainability in Indian agricultural research institutes. It is obvious that the scientific community has to do considerable soul searching and align closely with the expectations of society and responsibility towards future generations.
There may be many other areas in which NGOs, activists, and other readers may like to work together with us to pursue common concerns.
In this issue, apart from the regular columns, we carry a contribution from Narendranath, a farmer from Chittoor, experiences of a farmer from Surendranagar, a workshop report from Tamil Nadu on indigenous animal husbandary, a report on control of rhinocerous beetle in Karnataka, etc. We once again request readers to keep sending us their reactions, comments and contributions about farmers innovations, ecological knowledge systems, eco-indicators and other aspects of sustainable natural resource management.
I look forward to hearing from you, |
|
|
| Volume No. |
Honey Bee, 5(3):1, 1994 |
|
 
|
|
