Friday, 17 February 2017

Top 10 Most Influential People in Agriculture and Farming History

Top 10 Most Influential People in Agriculture and Farming History

September 30, 2009 at 1:00 pm 11 comments
The recent death of the great Norman Borlaug inspired me to develop a list showcasing the top 10 most influential individuals in the history of agriculture and farming.  This list is by no means definitive, but rather my first attempt to capture those individuals and their achievements that changed the world of agriculture (see footnote a).   I structured the list in rank order working my way from #10 to #1 with the person in the #1 spot having the all-time greatest influence in the history of agriculture and farming.
Enjoy, and please feel free to comment.
.
10. George Harrison Shull (April 15, 1874 – September 28, 1954)
 George H. Shull (image: Harry S. Truman Library and Museum)
George H. Shull (image: Harry S. Truman Library and Museum)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Considered the father of hybrid corn, Shull devoted 30 years of his life to corn breeding.  A botanist by training, Shull began his famous experiments at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island New York.  His experiments began in 1905 and centered on inheritance in corn.  Although there are several geneticists/botanists who made contributions to the development of hybrid corn, Shull made the critical observations on the reduction in vigor on inbreeding corn and the subsequent improvement of vigor on crossing corn.  These experiments provided the basis for hybrid corn.  Although it was ground breaking research, it would not be until 1922 before hybridized corn was made commercially available.  Shull founded the journal Genetics (which is considered to this day one of the top international science journals), and served as a Professor of Botany and Genetics at Princeton University.
.
9. Henry A. Wallace (October 7, 1888 – November 18, 1965)
 Henry A. Wallace (image: public domain)
Henry A. Wallace (image: public domain)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wallace’s accomplishments are many: Vice President of the United States, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, and other distinguished roles. Wallace was considered an active Secretary of Agriculture and his Department of Agriculture oversaw the creation and development of the food stamp and school lunch programs. He supported government intervention and implemented controversial measures to regulate production in American farming with government planning designed to battle overproduction and low prices. Specifically, Wallace ordered slaughtering pigs and plowing up cotton fields in rural America to drive the price of these commodities back up in order to improve American farmers’ economic situation. He experimented with breeding high-yielding strains of corn and easily earns a spot here because he also founded the Hi-Bred Corn Company in 1926, which we know today as Pioneer Hi-Bred.
An active secretary of agriculture, Wallace took to heart the needs and fears of his agricultural constituents. Inaddition to helping American farmers sustain themselves during the economic downturn, his Department ofAgriculture oversaw the creation and development of the food stamp and school lunch programs that greatly aidedurban America. In 1934, Wallace published a book about the economic turbulence of the depression and itsrepercussions on farmers, which he titled New Frontiers. In it Wallace outlined the visionary politics that heemployed in his subsequent writings and speeches. Later observers would compare both the title and the themes ofthis book with the ideas espoused by John F. Kennedy.3Drastic times called for drastic measures. A firm supporter of government economic intervention, Wallacevigorously implemented the controversial measures of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Never before inpeacetime, had the federal government sought to regulate production in American farming, with governmentplanning designed to battle overproduction and low prices. Additionally, Wallace offered hog and cotton farmers asingle opportunity to improve their stagnating markets by ploughing under ten million acres of cotton andslaughtering six million pigs. For these losses, the government would issue relief checks totalling millions of dollars.Although it earned him the nickname “The Greatest Butcher in Christendom,” the program essentially worked, andthe market experienced a 50-percent rise in prices. Wallace scorned those who ridiculed his plans withoutconsidering the logic behind them, observing, “Perhaps they think that farmers should run a sort of old-folks homefor hogs.”4 Having proved himself an effective, energetic cabinet member, Wallace remained in office throughRoosevelt’s first two terms. By 1940, with Europe plunged into war, there was talk of an unprecedented third term,and Wallace was among those who endorsed the president’s reelection. Because Vice President John Nance Garner,who aspired to the presidency himself, strongly opposed a third term, Roosevelt sought a new running mate for the1940 election once he made the decision to run. FDR’s choice of Wallace marked a turning point in the history of thevice-presidency. Never before had the president so openly made the selection. In the past, the main function of a
vice president was usually to balance the ticket, to unite the party, and to pull in voters not normally d
An active secretary of agriculture, Wallace took to heart the needs and fears of his agricultural constituents. Iaddition to helping American farmers sustain themselves during the economic downturn, his Department ofHe experimented with breeding high-yielding strains of corn 1913-1933 and easily earns a spot here because he also founded the Hi-Bred Corn Company in 1926, which we know today as Pioneer Hi-Bred.
.
8. Rachel Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964)
 Rachel Carson (image: public domain)
Rachel Carson (image: public domain)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Few literary works, if any, can compare to the enormous agricultural and environmental influence of Carson’s book Silent Spring. Published in 1962, the book was a landmark event in the history of the environmental movement.  Carson focused the book on pesticides and their use in agriculture, and argued that those chemicals were dangerous to the environment, wildlife, and humans.  Carson was adept at presenting thorough documentation to make her point and concluded that the effects were akin to pesticide poisoning.  The book is not without great controversy, and is cited as making erroneous cause-and-effect relationships one of which led to severe use restrictions and bans of DDT.  It has been suggested that the subsequent ban of DDT has led to the resurgence of malaria and other fatal diseases.  Regardless of which side of the argument you fall, what cannot be disputed is the powerful impact this book has on the agricultural world.
.
.
7. Robert Fraley  (birthdate: 1953)
 Robert Fraley (image: Janice Person, Monsanto)
Robert Fraley (image: Janice Person, Monsanto)
.
“Chimeric bacterial genes conferring resistance to aminoglycoside antibiotics have been inserted…” And so begins the opening of Fraley’s 1983 paper where he and his research team at Monsanto indicate they have found a method of creating transgenic plants by using a pathogenic bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Other researchers from around the world were on a similar course, but Fraley earned this spot due to his drive and ambition which led to the commercialization of genetically modified plants. The first genetically modified plants from Monsanto which achieved widespread success were soybeans resistant to glyphosate herbicide. Fraley has contributed to years of agricultural development through a number of significant activities, including authoring more than 100 publications and patent applications relating to technical advances in agricultural biotechnology.  The only living member of this list, I suspect Fraley will move up a few spots over time as the true impact of his work unfolds.
.
6. John Deere (February 7, 1804 – May 17, 1886)
 John Deere (image: public domain)
John Deere (image: public domain)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The plow is cited as one of the most important inventions in the advancement of society. John Deere certainly did not invent the plow, as post-Roman modern cast iron plows had been around for 50 years prior to his creation.  Instead, Deere developed and improved on the plow by making his out of steel in 1837.  The steel plow that Deere developed worked superior in American Midwest soils compared to the cast-iron plow.  I placed John Deere at this spot not simply because he developed a steel plow, but because his plow unlocked the vast fertility of the Midwest soils which ultimately unleashed the incredible yield potential and food producing ability of the American Midwest.  Further, Deere smartly positioned his newborn company in Moline, Illinois, to be closer to the Mississippi River and better transport his products to farmers.  John Deere built high quality products, and his company’s namesake maintains that reputation as a high quality agricultural and construction equipment manufacturer to this day.
.
5. Eli Whitney (December 8, 1765 – January 8, 1825)
 Eli Whitney (image: public domain)
Eli Whitney (image: public domain)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Considered an all-around ingenious inventor and often mentioned in the same sentence as Thomas Edison, Eli Whitney is best known for the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 or 1794. Simply put, a cotton gin is a machine that is used to pull cotton fibers from the cotton seed. The cotton gin was a groundbreaking invention in the southern United States, and it had an enormous positive impact on the economies of the southern states in the U.S.  The cotton gin also had an equally important impact on slavery in this country. Prior to Whitney’s cotton gin, raising cotton was very labor intensive and only a few plantations could profitably raise cotton. The cotton gin catapulted cotton to a widespread, lucrative and less labor-intensive crop, contributing to the rise of cotton production in the Deep South. The availability of large supplies of cotton fiber also contributed to the rise of the textile industry. It is difficult to state with absolute certainty that the cotton gin directly led to an increase in slavery, but the cotton gin clearly was a major factor contributing to slavery issues in the South.
.
4. Cyrus McCormick  (February 15, 1809 – May 13, 1884)
 Cyrus McCormick (image: public domain)
Cyrus McCormick (image: public domain)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The story goes that Cyrus McCormick worked feverishly and well into the nights over the course of several months to develop the world’s first mechanical reaper in 1831.  A mechanical reaper was needed, as harvesting crops in McCormick’s day required numerous men to cut and gather. McCormkick’s reaper was able to replace manpower for machine power and is often cited as a key driver for the westward expansion of the United States. In 1851, the reaper won the highest award of the day, the Gold Medal at London’s Crystal Palace Exhibition. Cyrus McCormick became incredibly famous and was literally a worldwide celebrity. Cyrus McCormick is referred to as the ‘Father of Modern Agriculture.’ A footnote to this story is that Cyrus did not work alone. Jo Anderson, a slave, is cited to have worked with McCormick in development of the mechanical reaper.
.
3. George Washington Carver (January 1864 – January 5, 1943)
 George Washington Carver (image: public domain)
George Washington Carver (image: public domain)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The contributions of George Washington Carver to agriculture, particularly southern U.S. agriculture cannot be overstated. Carver single-handedly improved the lives of thousands of poor southern farmers by providing information on crops, cultivation techniques, and recipes for meals. He is best known for research into and promotion of alternative crops to cotton, particularly focusing on peanuts and sweet potatoes.  Carver was a progressive agricultural thinker, encouraging farmers to submit soil samples for analysis to determine causes of poor yield. Beyond crops and soils, Carver also taught livestock care and food preservation techniques. Carver was a great agricultural educator, researcher and humanitarian, and has gained worldwide acclaim for his lifetime of achievements to agriculture.
.
2. Norman Borlaug (March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009)
 Norman Borlaug (image: Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture, Texas A&M System)
Norman Borlaug (image: Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture, Texas A&M System)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
His obituary read “… he taught the world to feed itself.”  Borlaug is credited with saving hundreds of millions to as many as a billion lives from starvation.  Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his work on the world’s food supply, Borlaug is known the world over for his highly successful wheat breeding and wheat research programs in Mexico.  He created the World Food Prize in 1986 to recognize the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world. Borlaug championed an adequate food supply for every human being, and spent his lifetime working on improving food production to feed an ever-growing world population.
.
1. Fritz Haber (9 December 1868 – 29 January 1934)
 Fritz Haber (image: public domain)
Fritz Haber (image: public domain)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Although co-developed with Carl Bosch, the process of ammonia synthesis bears Haber’s name and is known the world over as the Haber Process.  (There is an attempt to give credit to Bosch by referring to the process as Haber-Bosch).   In 1908 Haber developed the technique still used today to take the vast amount of nitrogen available in the atmosphere and convert it into nitrogen that plants can use.  In 1918 Haber won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.  Although nitrogen fertilizer had been previously available, this major leap forward allowed for the relatively inexpensive production of nitrogen fertilizer which ultimately led to its widespread availability.  Today, people the world over rely on the Haber-Bosch process to produce nitrogen fertilizer which helps raise food.  Without the Haber-Bosch process, we would not be able to feed our global population–Haber’s discovery has helped feed countless billions of humans.  I liken Haber’s achievement somewhat to that of Henry Ford. Ford was able to mass produce automobiles inexpensively and Haber developed the process to mass produce nitrogen fertilizer inexpensively. Ironically, Haber also contributed to human destruction by playing a role in warfare with his involvement in chemical agents during World War I.
.
Other Notables
Dwayne Orville Andreas (birthdate: 1918) former head of Archers Daniels Midland and cited with developing that company into an agricultural giant.
Hugh Bennett (April 15, 1881 – July 7, 1960) influenced by the Dust Bowl of the 30’s he created the Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and served as its first chief. He is considered today to be the father of soil conservation.
James G. Boswell II (March 10, 1923 – April 3, 2009) was the head of J.G. Boswell Company, a privately owned agribusiness giant based in California. Known as ‘The King of California’, Boswell grew his uncle’s company into a large and diversified farm over several hundred thousand acres. He played an important role in shaping water use policy in California.
Earl Butz (July 3, 1909 – February 2, 2008) noted as one of the more influential individuals to serve as Secretary of Agriculture, Butz dramatically reshaped American agricultural policy.
John Franz (1929), Paul Muller (1899–1965) chemists who separately developed glyphosate and DDT, respectively.  Both are highly recognized and honored for their work.
Temple Grandin (August 29, 1947) professor at Colorado State University focusing on animal handling and care. Grandin has garnered notoriety with her autism outreach and was portrayed by actress Clair Danes in a self-titled HBO biographical film. The movie highlighted Grandin’s autism and work with livestock.
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) our third President and firm believer that “cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens…”. Jefferson designed a moldboard plow, and handpicked Meriwether Lewis to lead the westward expedition which documented dozens of plant species.
Seaman Knapp (1831-1911) encouraged by boll weevil problems Knapp developed a very successful demonstration farm which is credited to the founding of the cooperative demonstration farm program and county agent system.
Aldo Leopold (January 11, 1887 – April 21, 1948) his famous book of essays A Sand County Almanac stands as one of key influences on agricultural and non-agricultural land use.  Leopold championed the concept of land ethic, and pushed the idea of ‘farmer as a conservationist’.
Richard Marshall, Earl Kooi, Y. Takasaki invented and refined the process of making high fructose corn syrup from milled corn in the 50’s and 60’s.  High fructose corn syrup is widely used (particularly in the United States) as a sweetener.
Andrew Meikle (1719 – 27 November 1811) one of the more notable individuals credited with inventing a thresher circa 1786.
Ingo Potrykus co-credited with creating golden rice, rice fortified with Vitamin A.
Henry David Thoreau (July 12, 1817 – May 6, 1862) Thoreau gets a spot here for his book, Walden, in which he describes his closeness with nature and chronicles his modest farm efforts.
Jethro Tull (30 March 1674 – 21 February 1741) vastly improved seeding crops by invention and refinement of seed drills.
.
Footnote a:  Picking individuals to fill 1 through 10 in this list is difficult, since often there were multiple individuals working together or providing influence that leads to a great achievement. I realize that I am sacrificing detail and oversimplifying some of the achievements listed above. My purpose of this post is to provide agricultural outreach education and raise awareness of agriculture.

Thursday, 16 February 2017

Krishna water: Bajaj panel to hold meetings

Krishna water: Bajaj panel to hold meetings

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/Krishna-water-Bajaj-panel-to-hold-meetings/article17292855.ece

SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT HYDERABAD:  FEBRUARY 12, 2017 23:45 IST
UPDATED: FEBRUARY 12, 2017 23:45 IST
SHARE ARTICLE PRINT A A A
Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd Sponsored Ad
Open 100% Paperless Demat Account in just 15 mins
The Bajaj Committee, set up by the Union Water Resources Ministry to help the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) in preparing a working manual along with an operational protocol for sharing Krishna river water between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, will hold a series of meetings with officials of the two States from February 13 to 15.

Headed by former chairman of the Central Water Commission (CWC) A.K. Bajaj, the committee would hold a meeting with Irrigation Department officials of Telangana here on Monday. Officials have already been tasked with preparing a presentation to be made before the committee.

Sources stated that the strategy, including the presentation for the meeting, would be first cleared by Irrigation Minister T. Harish Rao before taking Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao’s clearance. The State government was expected to argue for installation of telemetry equipment at all points from where A.P. was drawing (tapping) water from the river and also at Pattiseema and Polaram project sites from where the Godavari water was being diverted to the Krishna basin.

The committee would leave for Vijayawada on Monday evening and hold a meeting with A.P. Irrigation officials there on Tuesday. The panel would hold a joint meeting with officials of the two States here on February 15.

Besides Mr. Bajaj, the committee comprises Gopala Krishnan, R.P. Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Shukla, and N.N. Rai.


Bajaj panel washes hands of Krishna row, Telangana bristles



B Krishna Prasad | TNN | Feb 16, 2017, 09.55 AM IST

Representative image.
Representative image.
HYDERABAD: In a major setback for Telangana, the AK Bajaj committee expressed its helplessness in amicably settling the issue of sharing of Krishna water between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. At the wrap up meeting with the two states here on Wednesday, the committee said the sharing of water would be addressed by the Brijesh Kumar tribunal.
On sharing of Polavaram and Pattiseema compensatory water too, the committee refused to intervene and told Telangana that it would bring the matter to the notice of the Centre. Shocked over the committe e's response, the Telangana government has decided to send irrigation advisor R Vidyasagar Rao to New Delhi to complain to the Centre about the approach of the Bajaj panel to the issue. The TRS government is frustrated with the com mittee's latest enquiry about small and minor water resources which has been raised by Andhra Pradesh government.
Peeved over the committee's response, chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao has offered to settle the disputes with AP through negotiations. "After its return from Vijayawada, the Bajaj committee has gone back on its word. In fact, during the first meeting, the committee had clearly agreed with us that sharing of Pattiseema and Polavaram compensatory water is on the agenda," said Vidyasagar Rao.
Irrigation special chief secretary Shailendra Kumar Joshi expressed his displeasure over the committee not taking any decision on the contentious issues.


TS officials off to Delhi as Bajaj leaves them dry

By Express News Service  |   Published: 16th February 2017 02:14 AM  |  
Last Updated: 16th February 2017 05:38 AM  |   A+A A-   |  

HYDERABAD: THE three-day tour of the AK Bajaj Committee to Andhra and Telangana ended on Wednesday with Telangana Irrigation Advisor R Vidyasagar Rao off to Delhi to meet Union Water Ministry officials to settle the matter of Godavari water diversion as the panel made it clear it’s duty was not to allocate water compensating the Godavari water diversion to Krishna basin.

“If Water Resources Ministry wants, we will look into the Godavari water diversion issue and make an arbitrary arrangement,” AK Bajaj told reporters before leaving to Delhi. The Bajaj panel met irrigation officials from Telangana on Monday and AP on Tuesday. It held a joint meeting with officials from both states on Wednesday.
Telangana wanted the Committee to give the state a 65 per cent share in 45 tmc of Krishna waters above Nagarjuna Sagar Project, in compensation for AP’s diversion of 53 tmc of Godavari water to Krishna river in the current year.

Telangana demanded an extra share of 35 tmc in Krishna waters. However, Bajaj said that sharing of waters was the duty of the Tribunal not of the Committee. “If Union Water Resources Ministry wants, we will look into and make interim allocation of waters,” Bajaj said.

But, TS officials said that the terms of reference for the Bajaj Committee was “allocation of Godavari waters being transferred to Krishna basin in accordance with Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1980.
“I will meet Union Water Resources Ministry secretary in Delhi on Friday and urge the Ministry to allocate temporary waters in compensation to Godavari diversion,” Vidyasagar Rao said, adding it would take years for the Tribunal to make final allocation of waters and that was why the Bajaj Committee had been constituted.

Meanwhile some officials alleged the panel was under the influence of AP’s officials. P8  


What purpose does Bajaj Committee serve?

The committee deputed by the Union Water Resources Ministry to the sibling States over resolving sharing of Krishna waters, sounded a bit vague on its designated purpose.

By Mandhumula Pradeep   |   Published: 16th Feb 2017   12:00 am Updated: 16th Feb 2017   2:31 am
Hyderabad: The big question asked by those at the helm of irrigation affairs in Telangana is what purpose does the A K Bajaj Committee serve? The committee deputed by the Union Water Resources Ministry to the sibling States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh on a dispute resolution mission over sharing of Krishna waters, sounded a bit vague on its designated purpose.

There is nothing to cheer about its visit as the panel had almost backed out from its primary task — apportionment of Godavari waters diverted by Andhra Pradesh to the Krishna basin. Much to the dismay of Telangana’s irrigation authorities, the committee sought to restrict its role to the areas of prime interest to AP. It is a day of disappointment for Telangana, says a key official who was part of the crucial meetings the panel had in Hyderabad in the last three days.
Helplessness

While expressing its helplessness in dealing with the diversion of Godavari waters to Krishna basin through Pattiseema and Polavaram project, the committee had sufficiently indicated that its agenda is not made up on its own. The committee had assured to come back to the States once again after ascertaining it terms of reference with the Ministry of Water Resources. It is likely to seek more time probably by way of extension of its term to accomplish the task it has been assigned with.

For A K Bajaj, former chairman of the Central Water Commission (CWC), heading the panel, the preparation of operational manual for the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) that would help in managing the inter-State projects such as Srisailam and Nagarjuna Sagar is the priority. The Andhra Pradesh government is also solely interested in this. It insisted on the putting in place a mechanism that would help KRMB to decide on its own the water releases from the joint projects in the Krishna basin.

R Vidyasagar Rao, Advisor to the State government on irrigation, pointed out that the committee, that had initially confirmed the apportionment of the Godavari water diverted to Krishna basin as part of its terms of reference, changed its stand after coming back from Vijayawada. The TS authorities took strong exception to the panel stand with regard to the minor irrigation sources of Telangana. It had a sought complete particulars about the minor irrigation sources in the Krishna basin.

Rao to leave for Delhi

R Vidyasagar rao, former Chief Engineer of the Central Water Commission, who was totally unhappy with the deliberations the panel had as part of its wrap-up round of talks here on Wednesday, said he would leave for Delhi on Friday to take up the matters with the Ministry of Water Resources. The committee was acting against its term of reference, he added.

పంచాయితీ వద్దు - Krishna Water dispute

పంచాయితీ వద్దు
16-02-2017 01:16:00

కోర్టుల్లో కాదు, కూర్చుని చర్చిద్దాం.. మా వాటా ప్రకారమే వాడుతున్నాం
ఆంధ్రలో అక్రమంగా కట్టుకుంటున్నారు.. మా వాటికి అడ్డుపడుతున్నారు
వేల టీఎంసీలు పోతుంటే 50 టీఎంసీలకు గొడవ పెట్టుకోవడం అవివేకం
ఉమ్మడి ప్రాజెక్టుల్లో నీటి వినియోగానికి ఆపరేషన్‌ రూల్స్‌ రూపొందించాలి
బజాజ్‌ కమిటీకి ముఖ్యమంత్రి కేసీఆర్‌ స్పష్టీకరణ
హైదరాబాద్‌, ఫిబ్రవరి 15 (ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి): ‘‘తెలంగాణ, ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ రాష్ర్టాల మధ్య జల వివాదాలు వాంఛనీయం కాదు. రైతులెవరైనా రైతులే. ఏ రాష్ట్రం వారైనా రైతు ప్రయోజనాలే ముఖ్యం. మనక్కావాల్సింది నీరు కానీ.. వివాదాలు కాదు. నీటి కోసం
కోర్టుల చుట్టూ తిరగడం కన్నా, కలిసి కూర్చుని మాట్లాడుకోవడానికే నేను ప్రాధాన్యం ఇస్తాను’’ అని సీఎం కేసీఆర్‌ వ్యాఖ్యానించారు. రెండు రాష్ర్టాల మధ్య ఉమ్మడి ప్రాజెక్టుల్లో నీటి వినియోగంపై కేంద్రం వేసిన ఏకే బజాజ్‌ నాయకత్వంలోని ఐదుగురు సభ్యుల కమిటీ బుధవారం ప్రగతి భవన్‌లో సీఎం కేసీఆర్‌ను కలుసుకుంది. ఈ సందర్భంగా, ‘‘నీటి విషయంలో వివక్ష కారణంగానే తెలంగాణ ఉద్యమం వచ్చింది. నీళ్ల కోసం 60 ఏళ్లు గోసపడ్డాం. ఆ గోస తీర్చేందుకు ప్రయత్నిస్తున్నాం. మాకున్న వాటా ప్రకారమే నీటిని వాడుకుంటాం’’ కేసీఆర్‌ తెలిపారు.

సమైక్య రాష్ట్రంలో అన్యాయం
‘‘సమైక్య ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ లో అనుసరించిన వివక్షాపూరిత విధానాల వల్ల తెలంగాణ ప్రాంతం ఎంతో నష్టపోయింది. కేఎల్‌ రావు అనే ఇంజనీరు తెలంగాణకు అన్యాయం చేశారు. సాగర్‌ కుడి కాల్వకు ఎక్కువ, ఎడమ కాల్వకు తక్కువ నీరు అందేలా డిజైన్ చేశారు. తెలంగాణకు అన్యాయం చేసి ఆంధ్రకు నీరు మళ్లించినందుకు కృతజ్ఞతగా కేఎల్‌ రావును అక్కడ ఎంపీగా ఏకగ్రీవంగా ఎన్నుకున్నారు. సమైక్య రాష్ట్రంలో ఇలాంటి అన్యాయాలు ఎన్నో జరిగాయి’’ అని కేసీఆర్‌ వివరించారు. తెలంగాణ ప్రాజెక్టులు ముందుకు పడకుండా వివాదాల్లో పడేశారని, భీమా వంటి ప్రాజెక్టులకు నికర జలాల కేటాయింపులున్నా పూర్తి చేయలేదని, ఏ ప్రాజెక్టునైనా సరే ఏదో ఒక సాకు పెట్టి ఆపేశారని ఆరోపించారు. పాలమూరు ప్రాజెక్టుపై మోదీ ఎన్నికల సమయంలోనే హామీ ఇచ్చారని, కిరణ్‌ కుమార్‌ రెడ్డి సీఎంగా ఉన్నప్పుడే జీవో జారీ చేశారని, దానిని తెలంగాణ వచ్చిన తర్వాత తాము కడతామంటే అడ్డుకుంటున్నారని తప్పుబట్టారు. ‘‘అదే ఆంధ్రవారు అక్రమంగా పులిచింతల కట్టారు. పోతిరెడ్డిపాడు కట్టారు. ఇప్పుడు ముచ్చుమర్రి కడుతున్నారు. కానీ, తెలంగాణ ప్రాజెక్టులకు అడ్డుపడుతున్నారు’’ అని వివరించారు.

గోదావరి నీటిని ఉపయోగించుకోవాలి
‘‘గోదావరిలోనే 3000 టీఎంసీలు ఉంది. కృష్ణాలో 1200 టీఎంసీల నీరుంది. తెలంగాణ సాగునీటి అవసరాలు తీరడానికి వెయ్యి టీఎంసీలు చాలు. అందుకే మేం ప్రాజెక్టులను నిర్మి స్తున్నాం. గోదావరిలో మాకు 954 టీఎంసీల నీటి హక్కు ఉంది. దాని ప్రకారమే ప్రాజెక్టులు డిజైన్ చేస్తున్నాం. మా వాటా ప్రకారమే నీటిని వాడుకుంటున్నాం. తక్కువ నీటి లభ్యత ఉన్న కృష్ణా నీటి విషయంలో జగడాలు పెట్టే బదులు గోదావరి నీటిని సమర్థంగా వినియోగించుకోవాలి. పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టు ప్రతిపాదిత స్థలం నుంచి ప్రకాశం బ్యారేజీ, సోమశిల ప్రాజెక్టు ద్వారా గోదావరి నీటిని కోస్తా, రాయలసీమలకు తరలించడం చాలా సులభం. ఇలా చేస్తే ఏపీ అంతా సుభిక్షమవుతుంది. ఇదే విషయం చంద్రబాబుకు కూడా చెప్పాను. ఏటా వేల టీఎంసీలు సముద్రంలో కలుస్తుంటే, కేవలం 25-50 టీఎంసీల కోసం గొడవలు పెట్టుకోవడం అవివేకం’’ అని కేసీఆర్‌ చెప్పారు. తెలంగాణ రైతులకు న్యాయం చేయాలనేదే తమ లక్ష్యమని, అలాగని పొరుగు రాష్ట్రం నష్టపోవాలన్నది తమ అభిమతం కాదని చెప్పారు.

‘జీవించు, జీవించనివ్వు’ అన్నది తమ విధానమన్నారు. కాగా నదీ జలాల వినియోగానికి సంబంధించి రెండు వేర్వేరు స్కీములను అమలు చేయాలని సీఎం కేసీఆర్‌ సూచించారు. ‘‘గోదావరి, కృష్ణా జలాలను నాలుగు రాష్ర్టాలు వాడుకుంటున్నాయి. ఈ రెండు నదులపై మహారాష్ట్ర, కర్ణాటక అనేక ప్రాజెక్టులు కట్టాయి. దాంతో దిగువకు నీరు రావడం లేదు. సరైన వర్షాలు లేక నదుల్లో నీటి లభ్యత తక్కువ ఉన్న సమయంలో రాష్ర్టాల మధ్య నీటి పంపకం ఎలా జరగాలి? నీటి లభ్యత ఎక్కువై మిగు లు జలాలు ఉంటే నీటి పంపిణీ ఎలా ఉండాలనే విషయంపై రెండు వేర్వేరు ప్రతిపాదనలు రూపొందించాలి’’ అని చెప్పారు. కర్ణాటక, మహారాష్ట్ర నదులపై పెద్ద సంఖ్యలో డ్యాంలు కట్టాయని, దాంతో, నీటి ప్రవాహం తక్కువ ఉన్నప్పుడు కింది రాష్ర్టాలకు అన్యాయం జరుగుతోందని చెప్పారు. అందుకే, నాలుగు రాష్ర్టాలు ఏ సమయంలో ఎవరు ఎంత నీరు వాడుకోవాలనే విషయంలో స్పష్టత ఇవ్వాలని, ఈ విషయంలో కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వం జోక్యం చేసుకోవాలని సీఎం కోరారు.

కాగా తెలంగాణ, ఏపీ మధ్య ఉన్న ఉమ్మడి ప్రాజెక్టుల్లో నీటి వినియోగానికి సంబంధించి విధానం రూపొందించాలని బజాజ్‌ కమిటీని సీఎం కేసీఆర్‌ కోరారు. ‘‘గతంలో నాగార్జున సాగర్‌, శ్రీశైలం ప్రాజెక్టుల నీటి వినియోగానికి సంబంధించి ఆపరేషన రూల్స్‌ లేవు. అందుకే మాకు అన్యాయం జరిగింది. ఇప్పటికైనా న్యాయం చేయండి. పట్టిసీమ ద్వారా గోదావరి జలాలను కృష్ణా బేసినకు తరలిస్తున్నందున, తెలంగాణ రాష్ర్టానికి అందుకు తగ్గ రీతిలో కృష్ణా జలాల్లో వాటా పెంచాలి’’ అని డిమాండ్‌ చేశారు.

మేమేం చేయలేం!.. చేతులెత్తేసిన బజాజ్ కమిటీ
16-02-2017 01:18:46

నీటి పంపిణీ మా చేతుల్లో లేదు
పోలవరం, పట్టిసీమలో వాటాను తేల్చలేం: బజాజ్‌ కమిటీ
హైదరాబాద్‌, ఫిబ్రవరి 15 (ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి): తెలుగు రాష్ర్టాల మధ్య నెలకొన్న నీటి పంపిణీ వివాదం మళ్లీ మొదటికొచ్చింది. దీనిపై పరిష్కారం కనుగొనడానికి కేంద్రం నియమించిన నిపుణుల కమిటీ చేతులు ఎత్తేసింది. నీటి పంపిణీ అంశం తమ చేతుల్లో లేదని స్పష్టం చేసింది. పోలవరం, పట్టిసీమ నీటి విషయంలోనూ తాము చేసేదేమీ లేదని ప్రకటించింది. దాంతో కమిటీ వైఖరిపై రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వం తీవ్ర అభ్యంతరం వ్యక్తం చేసి ంది. కమిటీ తీరుపై కేంద్రానికి ఫిర్యాదు చేస్తామని పేర్కొంది. తెలంగాణ, ఏపీ మధ్య జల వివాదాలను పరిష్కరించేందుకు కేంద్రం ఎ.కె. బజాజ్‌ కమిటీ నేతృత్వంలో ఐదుగురు సభ్యులతో కూడిన నిపుణుల కమిటీని నియమించిన విష యం తెలిసిందే. రెండ్రోజులుగా ఈ కమి టీ తెలంగాణ, ఏపీలో పర్యటించింది. చివరి రోజు బుధవారం జలసౌధలో ఉభయ రాష్ర్టాల అధికారులతో సమావేశమైంది. కమిటీ చైర్మన ఎ.కె.బజాజ్‌ నేతృత్వంలోని జరిగిన ఈ భేటీలో సభ్యులు శుక్లా, పాండే, రాయ్‌, మాథుర్‌, కృష్ణా బోర్డు చైర్మన్ ఎస్‌.కె.హల్దార్‌, కార్యదర్శి సమీర్‌ ఛటర్జీ, తెలంగాణ ప్రభుత్వ సలహాదారు విద్యాసాగర్‌రావు, ప్రత్యేక ప్రధా న కార్యదర్శి ఎస్‌.కె.జోషి, నీటిపారుదల శాఖ అధికారులు, ఏపీ ఇరిగేషన్ కార్యదర్శి, తదితరులు పాల్గొన్నారు.

నీటి కేటాయింపులపై రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వం తరఫున స్పెషల్‌ సీఎస్‌ ఎస్‌.కె.జోషి ప్రస్తావిస్తూ.. పోలవరం నుంచి ఉమ్మడి ఏపీకి వచ్చే 45 టీఎంసీల నీటిలో 96 శాతం అంటే సుమారు 43 టీఎంసీల నీరు, అలాగే పట్టిసీమ నుంచి 65 శాతం అంటే 35 టీఎంసీల నీరు తెలంగాణకు వాటాగా రావాలని పేర్కొన్నారు. దీనిపై నిపుణుల కమిటీ స్పందిస్తూ ఈ విషయంలో తమకు ఎలాంటి అధికారం లేదని స్పష్టం చేసింది. పోలవరం, పట్టిసీమ నీరే కాకుండా కృష్ణాలోని నీటి కేటాయింపులపైనా తాము ఎలాంటి కొత్త నిర్ణయాన్ని తీసుకోలేమని పేర్కొంది.

నీటి కేటాయింపులపై ట్రైబ్యునల్‌లోనే తేల్చుకోవాలని సూచించింది. తెలంగాణ ప్రస్తావించిన అంశాలను కేంద్రం దృష్టికి తీసుకెళతామని, వారి సూచనల మేరకు నడుచుకుంటామని కమిటి సభ్యులు పేర్కొన్నారు. అయితే, కమిటీ వైఖరిపై విద్యాసాగర్‌రావు తీవ్ర అభ్యంతరం వ్యక్తం చేశారు. నీటి కేటాయింపుల అంశాన్నీ పరిశీలించాలని కేంద్రం సూచించినా అలా చేయడంలేదని అన్నారు. కమిటీ ఛైర్మన ఎ.కె. బజాజ్‌ మాట్లాడుతూ నీటి కేటాయింపులను ట్రైబ్యునల్‌ చేస్తుందని, తాము సలహాలను మాత్రమే ఇవ్వగలుగుతామని చెప్పారు.

మేమేం చేయలేం
S ,7 à 8 RSCA (si SASPAS) et 6 cialis pharmacie cialis rapports de stage.
Published Tuesday, 3 January 2017
న్యూఢిల్లీ, జనవరి 2: పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టు నిర్మాణంపై సుప్రీంకోర్టులో పలు పిటిషన్లు పెండింగ్‌లో ఉన్నందున తాము విచారణ జరపలేమని నేషనల్ గ్రీన్ ట్రిబ్యునల్ స్పష్టం చేసింది. పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టుకు సంబంధించిన పిటిషన్ విచారణకు సుప్రీకోర్టు అనుమతి తీసుకురావాలని ట్రిబ్యునల్ సూచించింది. సోమవారంనాడు పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టుకు పర్యావరణ అనుమతులను సవాల్ చేస్తూ రేలా అనే స్వచ్చంద సంస్థ దాఖలు చేసిన పిటిషన్ ట్రిబ్యునల్ చైర్మన్ జస్టిస్ స్వతంత్ర కుమార్‌తో కూడిన ధర్మాసనం విచారణ జరిపింది. ఎన్జీటి గతంలో కోరిన విధంగా సుప్రీంకోర్టులో పోలవరంపై దాఖలైన పిటిషన్ల వివరాలను పిటిషనర్ తరపు న్యాయవాదులు అనుప్ బోంబాని, శ్రవణ్‌కుమార్ ధర్మాసనం దృష్టికి తీసుకెళ్లారు. ఒడిశా, చత్తీస్‌గఢ్, తెలంగాణ జాగృతి సంస్థలతోపాటు కోదండరాం తదితరులు దాఖలు చేసిన పిటిషన్ల వివరాలను తెలిపారు. ఈ పిటిషన్లన్నీ దాదాపు పనె్నండేళ్లుగా సుప్రీం కోర్టులో పెడింగ్‌లో ఉన్నాయని ట్రిబ్యునల్ దృష్టికి తీసుకొచ్చారు. పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టుపై గ్రీన్ ట్రిబ్యునల్‌లో విచారణ జరపడానికి సుప్రీం కోర్డు అనుమతి తీసుకురావాలని ఎన్జీటి సూచించింది లేదా పోలవరం నిర్మాణంలో జరుగుతున్న పర్యావరణ ఉల్లంఘనలపై తాజాగా పిటిషన్ దాఖలు చేయాలని గ్రీన్ ట్రిబ్యునల్ సూచించింది. ఈ మేరకు నెల రోజుల గడువు మంజూరు చేస్తూ కేసు తదుపరి విచారణను ఫిబ్రవరి 8కి వాయిదా వేసింది.

Monday, 6 February 2017

Polavaram is Bane for Telangana

పోలవరం మాకు శాపం..
07-02-2017 03:13:58

దాని వల్లే కృష్ణాపై ఎగువ రాష్ట్రాల్లో కొత్త ప్రాజెక్టులు
కర్ణాటకలో 4 ఎత్తిపోతలకు అదే ఆధారం
మహారాష్ట్రలోనూ 14 టీఎంసీల ఎత్తిపోత
ట్రైబ్యునల్‌ తీర్పులోని క్లాజ్‌తో కేంద్రం ఓకే
దిగువకు నిలిచిపోనున్న 35 టీఎంసీలు
కేంద్రానికి ఫిర్యాదు చేయనున్న తెలంగాణ
హైదరాబాద్‌, ఫిబ్రవరి 6 (ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి): ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్‌లో నిర్మిస్తున్న పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టు తెలంగాణకు శాపంగా మారుతోందని రాష్ట్ర జల వనరుల అధికారులు భావిస్తున్నారు. ఆ ప్రాజెక్టులో భాగంగా చేసుకున్న ఒప్పందాల కారణంగానే ఎగువన ఉన్న కర్ణాటక, మహారాష్ట్ర కొత్త ప్రాజెక్టులను నిర్మిస్తున్నాయని గుర్తించారు. కృష్ణా నదిలో 35 టీఎంసీలను ఉపయోగించుకోవడానికి ప్రణాళికలు సిద్ధం చేసుకున్నాయని అంచనాకు వచ్చారు. కర్ణాటక ప్రభుత్వం కృష్ణా నదిపై కొత్తగా నాలుగు ఎత్తిపోతల ప్రాజెక్టులను చేపడుతున్న విషయంపై సోమవారం ‘ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి’ ప్రత్యేక కథనాన్ని ప్రచురించిన విషయం తెలిసిందే. ఈ ఎత్తిపోతల పథకాలు పూర్తయితే, తెలంగాణ రాష్ర్టానికి తీరని అన్యాయం జరగనుంది. ఈ కథనంపై స్పందించిన మంత్రి హరీశ్‌ రావు.. కర్ణాటక చేపడుతున్న ప్రాజెక్టులపై అధ్యయనం చేయాల్సిందిగా రాష్ట్ర జల వనరుల అధికారులను ఆదేశించినట్టు సమాచారం. దాంతో వారు ఎగువ రాష్ర్టాలు కొత్తగా చేపడుతున్న ప్రాజెక్టులపై ఆరా తీసినట్టు సమాచారం. ఈ సందర్భంగా, ఏపీలో పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టు నుంచి కృష్ణా ఆయకట్టుకు తరలించే నీటిని ఆధారంగా చేసుకుని ఎగువ రాష్ర్టాలు కొత్త ప్రాజెక్టుల నిర్మాణాలకు పూనుకుంటున్నట్టు వారి దృష్టికి వచ్చింది. గోదావరి ట్రైబ్యునల్‌ తీర్పులో పేర్కొన్న ఒక క్లాజ్‌ ఇందుకు కారణమని నిర్ధారణకు వచ్చా రు. ఎత్తిపోతల నిర్మాణాలకు కేంద్రం గ్రీన సిగ్నల్‌ ఇవ్వడంతో కృష్ణా నదిలో దిగువ కు వచ్చే నీటి ప్ర వాహం గణనీయం గా తగ్గిపోనుంది. ఈ అంశంపై కేంద్రానికి ఫిర్యాదు చేయాలని కూ డా ప్రభుత్వం నిర్ణయించినట్టు సమాచారం. అధికారుల నుంచి పూర్తి స్థాయి నివేదిక అందిన తర్వాత అధికారికంగా స్పందించాలని భావిస్తోంది. ఏపీలో గోదావరిపై పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టును నిర్మిస్తుంటే, దానిని అడ్డం పెట్టుకుని కర్ణాటకలో కృష్ణా నదిపై ఎత్తిపోతలు నిర్మించడం ఏమిటనే సందేహం వస్తుంది. ఈమేరకు అధికారుల అధ్యయనంలో పలు అంశాలు వెలుగు చూశాయి.

ఆ 80 టీఎంసీల్లో మీకూ వాటా!
ఉభయ గోదావరి జిల్లాల్లో సాగునీరు, విశాఖకు తాగునీరు అందించేందుకు పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టును నిర్మించాలని ఉమ్మడి ఏపీ నిర్ణయించింది. పారిశ్రామిక అవసరాలకు నీటిని అందించడంతోపాటు విద్యుదుత్పత్తి చేయాలని భావించింది. అలాగే, పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టు నుంచి 80 టీఎంసీలను కృష్ణా డెల్టాకు మళ్లించి, అక్కడి సాగునీటి కొరత తీర్చాలని నిర్ణయించింది. ఈ 80 టీఎంసీలను పోలవరం కుడి గట్టు కాల్వ నుంచి సాగర్‌ దిగువకు మళ్లించాలని భావించింది. ఈ మేరకు 1978లో గోదావరి ట్రైబ్యునల్‌ ఎదుట ప్రతిపాదించింది. ఇందుకు కర్ణాటక, మహారాష్ట్ర అభ్యంతరం చెప్పాయి. గోదావరి నీటిని కృష్ణా నదికి మళ్లించడం ద్వారా కృష్ణా నదిలో ఎక్కువ నీటిని వాడుకోవడానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తోందంటూ గగ్గోలు పెట్టా యి. ఈ వివాదాన్ని పరిష్కరించుకోవడానికి కర్ణాటక, మహారాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వాలతో ఏపీ ప్రభుత్వం 1978 ఆగస్టు 4వ తేదీన ఒప్పందం కుదుర్చుకుంది. దాని ప్రకారం, కృష్ణా డెల్టాకు మళ్లించే 80 టీఎంసీల్లో ఉమ్మడి ఏపీ రాష్ట్రం 45 టీఎంసీలు, కర్ణాటక 21 టీఎంసీలు, మహారాష్ట్ర మిగిలిన 14 టీఎంసీలను పంచుకునేందుకు నిర్ణయించాయి. ఈ నీటిని నాగార్జున సాగర్‌ ఎగువన ఉపయోగించుకోవాల్సి ఉం టుంది. పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టుకు కేంద్ర జల సంఘం గ్రీన్‌ సిగ్నల్‌ ఇచ్చిన మరుక్షణం నుంచే కృష్ణా నదిలో 35 టీఎంసీలను ఉపయోగించుకోవడానికి కర్ణాటక, మహారాష్ట్రలకు పూర్తి స్వేచ్ఛ ఉంటుందని అప్పటి ఒప్పందంలో పేర్కొన్నారు. తద్వారా, ఎగువ రాష్ర్టాలు కృష్ణా నీటిని ఈ కేటాయింపుల ప్రకారం పెంచుకోనున్నాయి. ఈ మేరకు 1980లో గోదావరి నది ట్రైబ్యునల్‌ తీర్పును వెలువరించింది. పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టుకు సీడబ్ల్యూసీ అనుమతిని ఇచ్చిన మరుసటి రోజు నుంచే ఈ నీటిని ఉపయోగించుకోవడానికి వె సులుబాటును ఇస్తూ, తీర్పుల్లో (3వ పేజీ) క్లాజ్‌-7 పేరా ‘బి’లో ట్రైబ్యునల్‌ స్పష్టంగా పేర్కొంది. ఈ తీర్పును కర్ణాటక, మహారాష్ట్ర తమకు అనుకూలంగా మలచుకుని ఎత్తిపోతల పథకాలు నిర్మించుకుంటున్నాయి. కాగా పోలవరం నీటి పేరిట ఎగువ రాష్ర్టాలు కొత్త ప్రాజెక్టుల నిర్మాణానికి సిద్ధపడుతుండడంతో ఈ అంశంపై ఎవరికి ఫిర్యాదు చేయాలనే దానిపై తెలంగాణ ప్రభుత్వం తేల్చుకోలేకపోతోంది. ప్రస్తు తం ఏర్పడిన కృష్ణా బోర్డు రెండు రాష్ర్టాలకే చెందడంతో దానికి ఫిర్యాదు చేసే అవకాశఽం లేదు. అలాగే, కృష్ణా ట్రైబ్యునల్‌కు ఫిర్యాదు చేయడానికీఅవకాశం లేదు. దాంతో నేరుగా కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వానికి ఫిర్యాదు చేయాలనే ఆలోచనలో ప్రభుత్వం ఉన్నట్టు సమాచారం.

తేలని పోలవరం నీటి కోటా
పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టు ద్వారా ఉమ్మడి ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ రాష్ర్టానికి లభించే 45 టీఎంసీల్లో తెలంగాణకు, ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ రాష్ర్టాలకు ఎంతెంత వాటా అనే విషయంపై ఇప్పటికీ స్పష్టత రాలేదు. దీనిపై ఇప్పటికే ఇటు బోర్డును, అటు కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వాన్ని రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వం పలు సార్లు కోరింది. అయినా 45 టీఎంసీల పునః పంపిణీ జరగలేదు. ఒకవైపు పోలవరం పూర్తి కాకుండానే,ఎగువ రాష్ర్టాలు పోలవరం కోటా ప్రకారం నీటి వినియోగానికి సిద్ధమతుండడం గమనార్హం.

తెలంగాణకే నష్టం ఎక్కువ!
పోలవరం పూర్తి కాకపోయినా, ఆ ప్రాజెక్టు కారణంగా గతంలో చేసుకున్న ఒప్పందాల ప్రకారం కృష్టా నీటిని అదనంగా ఉపయోగించుకోవడానికి ఎగువ రాష్ర్టాలకు అవకాశం ఉండడంతో కొత్త ప్రాజెక్టులను చేపట్టాలని నిర్ణయించాయి. అందులో భాగంగానే కర్ణాటక ప్రభుత్వం 21 టీఎంసీల సామర్థ్యంతో నాలుగు ఎత్తిపోతల పథకాల నిర్మాణానికి శ్రీకారం చుట్టింది. ఇందుకు కేంద్రం కూడా గ్రీన్‌ సిగ్నల్‌ ఇచ్చింది. అలాగే, మహారాష్ట్ర కూడా పోలవరం వల్ల తమకు కేటాయించిన 14 టీఎంసీలను ఉపయోగించుకోవడానికి కొత్త ప్రాజెక్టులను ప్రతిపాదిస్తున్నట్టు తెలంగాణ జలవనరుల విభాగం అధికారులు గుర్తించారు. ఈ రాష్ర్టాలు కొత్త ప్రాజెక్టులను పూర్తి చేస్తే.. దిగువకు వచ్చే కృష్ణా నీటిలో 35 టీఎంసీలు తగ్గిపోనున్నాయి. దీని ప్రభావం తెలంగాణపై గణనీయంగా పడనుంది. ఏపీ ప్రభుత్వం ఇప్పటికే పట్టిసీమ పేరిట గోదావరి నది నీటిని కృష్ణా డెల్టాకు మళ్లిస్తోంది. దాంతో కృష్ణా నదిలో నీటి ప్రవాహం సరిగ్గా లేకపోయినా.. కృష్ణా ఆయకట్టు అవసరాలు తీర్చుకోవడానికి అవకాశం ఏర్పడింది.

Wednesday, 1 February 2017

Union Budget 2017: Highlights

Union Budget 2017: Highlights

TNN | Updated: Feb 1, 2017, 03.10 PM IST

Finance minister Arun Jaitley presented the Union Budget 2017-18 in the Lok Sabha today. Here are the highlights of the Union Budget:

1. India stands out as a bright spot amid world economic gloom .
2. Our focus will be on energising youth to reap benefits of growth and employment.
3. IMF estimates world GDP will grow by 3.4 per cent in 2017 .
4. Oil prices, rising dollar and volatile commodity prices seen as risks to Indian economy.
5. India is seen as engine of global growth, have witnessed historic reform in last one year.
6. Demonetisation is a bold and decisive measure, for many decades tax evasion was a way of life for many.
7. Note ban is expected to have only a transient impact on economy .
8. I am reminded of what our father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi said: "A right cause never fails".
9. The pace of remonetisation has picked up.
10. Effects of demonetisation not expected to spill over to next year.
11. Budget preponement to February 1 will give sufficient time to departments to implement government schemes.
12. Our Budget agenda is - transform, energise and clean India - TEC India.
13. Our approach in preparing the Budget is to spend more on rural areas, infrastructure and poverty alleviation with fiscal prudence .
14. Agriculture sector is expected to grow at 4.6%, agriculture expenditure targeted at Rs 10 lakh crore.
15. 36% increase in FDI flow; forex reserves at $361 billion in January, which is enough to cover 12 months needs.
16. Allocation under MNREGA increased to 48,000 crore from Rs 38,500 crore. This is highest ever allocation
17. Total allocation for rural, agricultural and allied sectors for 2017-18 is Rs 187223 crore, which is 24% higher than last year .
18. One crore houses for poor by 2019.
19. Safe drinking water to cover 28,000 arsenic and Fluoride-affected habitations in the next four years.
20. 133-km road per day constructed under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana as against 73-km in 2011-14 .
21. For senior citizens, Aadhar cards giving their health condition will be introduced .
22. Two new All India Institute of Medical Sciences(AIIMS) to be set up in Jharkhand and Gujarat .
23. 3500km railway lines to be put up.
24. Service charge on rail tickets booked through IRCTC to be withdrawn.
25. Rail safety fund with corpus of Rs 100,000 crore will be created over a period of five years.
26. 500 rail stations to be made differently abled-friendly by providing lifts and escalators .
27. A new metro rail policy will be announced, this will open up new jobs for our youth.
28. Foreign investment promotion board (FIPB) to be abolished .
29. Allocation for infrastructure stands at a record Rs 3,96,135 crore .
30. Government to set up strategic crude oil reserves in Odisha and Rajasthan.
31. 1.25 crore people have already adopted Bhim App for digital payments .
32. Aadhaar Pay- an app for merchants- to be launched' 20 lakh aadhaar-based POS by September 2017 .
33. Government is considering introduction of new law to confiscate assets of offenders who escape the country.
34. Defence expenditure excluding pension at Rs 2.74 lakh crore .
35. Fiscal deficit for 2017-18 pegged at 3.2 percent of GDP .
36. Fiscal deficit target for next three years pegged at 3 percent.
37. India's tax-to GDP ratio is very low. We are largely a tax non compliance society, when too many people evade taxes burden falls on those who are honest.
38. Out of 3.7 crore who filed tax returns in 2015-16, only 24 lakh persons showed income above Rs 10 lakh.
39. Of 76 lakh individuals who reported income of over Rs 5 lakh, 56 lakh are salaried.
40. Small firms with turnover up to Rs 50 crore to pay 25% tax now, instead of 30%.
41. Black money SIT has suggested no cash transaction above Rs 3 lakh. The government has accepted this recommendation .
42. Maximum cash donation any party can receive will be Rs 2000 from one source.
43. Political parties will be entitled to receive donations by cheques or digital modes .

44. An amendment being proposed to RBI Act to enable the issuance of electoral bonds for political funding.
45. Jaitley reduces income tax rate from 10% to 5% for tax slab of Rs 250,000 to Rs 500,000 .
46. Surcharge of 10% for those whose annual income is Rs 50 lakh to 1 crore .
47. 15% surcharge on incomes above Rs 1 crore to continue.
Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.




2017-18 కేంద్ర బడ్జెట్‌ ముఖ్యాంశాలివే..
01-02-2017 13:11:47

న్యూఢిల్లీ : కేంద్ర ఆర్థిక శాఖ మంత్రి అరుణ్ జైట్లీ ప్రవేశపెట్టిన సాధారణ బడ్జెట్ ప్రజలముందుకు వచ్చింది. 2017-18 వార్షిక బడ్జెట్‌ను రూ.21.47లక్షల కోట్లుగా పేర్కొంటూ బుధవారం లోక్‌సభలో ప్రవేశపెట్టారు. గత సంప్రదాయాలకు భిన్నంగా ఈసారి ఫిబ్రవరి 1నే బడ్జెట్‌ను ప్రవేశపెట్టారు. రైల్వే బడ్జెట్‌ను విలీనం చేసిన తర్వాత ప్రవేశపెట్టే సాధారణ బడ్జెట్ ఇది.

బడ్జెట్ ముఖ్యాంశాలు :
* రూ.4.11లక్షల కోట్లను కేంద్రపాలిత ప్రాంతాలకు కేటాయింపు
* రక్షణ వ్యయం రూ.2.74లక్షల కోట్లు (పెన్షన్‌ కాకుండా)
* ప్రైవేటు రంగంలో పెట్టుబడులు తగ్గాయి.
* ద్రవ్య లోటు 2.3శాతం
* రెవెన్యూ లోటును తగ్గించుకోగలిగాం
* నోట్ల రద్దు వల్ల పన్ను వసూళ్లు పెరిగాయి
* బీమ్‌ యాప్‌ ప్రోత్సాహం కోసం రెండు కొత్త పథకాలు
* మన జీడీపీలో పన్నుల శాతం తక్కువ
* ప్రత్యక్ష పన్నుల ద్వారా వస్తున్న రూ.1.74లక్షల కోట్లు
* చాలా కంపెనీలు ఇన్‌కం ట్యాక్స్‌ రిటర్న్స్‌ ఇవ్వడంలేదు
* కొన్ని కంపెనీలు జీరో ఆదాయం చూపుతున్నాయి
* సామాన్యుడికి ప్రయోజనం కలిగేలా నగదు రహిత చెల్లింపు వ్యవస్థ
* పెట్రోల్‌ బంకులు, ఆస్పత్రుల్లో నగదు రహిత చెల్లింపులకు ప్రోత్సాహం
* రూ.2500 కోట్ల నగదు రహిత లావాదేవీలు జరపాలన్నది లక్ష్యం.
* కేవలం 24లక్షల మందే నెలకు 10లక్షలకు పైగా ఆదాయం చూపిస్తున్నారు
* కార్ల అమ్మకాలు కోట్లు
* రూ.50లక్షల ఆదాయం చూపేవారి సంఖ్య తక్కువ
* ఎక్కువ క్యాష్ ఉండటం వల్లే ఈ సమస్య
* నగదు లావాదేవీల వల్ల పన్ను ఎగవేతలు
* త్వరలో ఆధార్‌ అనుసంధానిత వ్యవస్థ
* 1.09 కోట్ల అకౌంట్లలో సగటున రూ.5లక్షలు డిపాజిట్
* పన్ను సంస్కరణలు తీసుకొస్తున్నాం
* ఆర్థిక నేరాలకు పాల్పడి దేశం విడిచి వెళ్లే నేరగాళ్ల ఆస్తుల జప్తు కోసం ప్రత్యేక చట్టం
* పన్ను సంస్కరణల వల్ల అసలు రంగు బయటపడుతోంది
* ఇన్‌కం ట్యాక్స్‌ ద్వారా 34.8శాతం ఆదాయం
*మధ్య తరగతికి అనుకూలంగా ప్రభుత్వ పన్నుల సంస్కరణలు
* ఇల్లు కట్టాక అందులో నివసించకపోయినా పన్ను కట్టాల్సిందే: జైట్లీ
* ఇంటి నిర్మాణం పూర్తయిన ఏడాది తర్వాత ఖాళీగా ఉంటే పన్ను: జైట్లీ
* 2020లోగా 20లక్షల ఆధార్‌ ఆధారిత పీవోఎస్‌ యంత్రాలు
* అమరావతి రైతులకు క్యాపిటల్‌ గెయిన్‌ మినహాయింపు
* అత్యంత వినూత్నంగా భూసమీకరణ
*రూ.5కోట్ల లోపు టర్నోవర్‌ ఉన్న స్టార్టప్‌లకు1శాతం పన్ను మినహాయింపు
*రూ.500కోట్ల టర్నోవర్‌ ఉన్న కంపెనీలకు 25శాతమే పన్ను
* కార్పొరేట్‌ పన్ను 5శాతం తగ్గింపు
* ఉద్యోగాల కల్పన కోసమే ఈ నిర్ణయం
* చారిటబుల్‌ ట్రస్టులకుకు ధన రూపేణ అందించే విరాళం రూ.2వేలకు మించరాదు
* రూ.3లక్షల కన్నా నగదు చెల్లింపులు వద్దని కమిటీ చెప్పింది ఈ దిశగా చట్టం
* డిజిటలైజేషన్‌ను ప్రోత్సహించే పరికరాలు తయారుచేస్తే పన్ను మినహాయింపులు

రాజకీయ పార్టీలకు కేంద్రం షాక్‌
* రాజకీయ పార్టీలకు రూ.2వేల కన్నా ఎక్కువగా విరాళం ఇచ్చేవారి వివరాలు వెల్లడించాల్సిందే
* రూ.2వేలకు మించితే చెక్కు, ఆన్‌లైన్‌లో విరాళాలు తీసుకోవాలి
* ఇన్‌కం ట్యాక్స్‌ రిటర్న్స్‌ కచ్చితంగా దాఖలు చేయాలి

జైట్లీ బడ్జెట్‌లో చిరు ఉద్యోగులకు ఊరట
* రూ. 3 లక్షల వరకు పూర్తి పన్ను మినహాయింపు
* రూ. 2.5 లక్షల నుంచి 5 లక్షల శ్లాబ్‌లో సగానికి తగ్గిన పన్నురేటు
* రూ. 2.5 లక్షల నుంచి 5 లక్షల మధ్య ఆదాయంపై ఇక 5 శాతమే పన్ను
* మిగతా శ్లాబ్‌లు యథాతథం

Tuesday, 31 January 2017

The Great Gene Robbery - Claude Alvares

The Great Gene Robbery
by Claude Alvares on 13 Jan 2012


In 1982, Dr M.S. Swaminathan withdrew from his position as Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet (SACC) and deputy chairman of the Planning Commission – he was also earlier secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture – and defected to join the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) based at Los Banos in the Philippines as Director-General. The word ‘defected’ is used here on purpose: in no other country of the world would a scientist in such a strategically important position, privy to all the country’s scientific secrets particularly of those related to food, be permitted to leave and overnight become the employee of an institution controlled by two private foundations so closely allied to American capitalism and US foreign policy interests.



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[ed] 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.

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 Chhattisgarh 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 called udan 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 and Japonicas 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. Subramaniam.



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 was the disastrous harvests of 1965 and 1966. What weighed with the Government of India (and also former President Marcos of the Philippines) 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's literature 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.



(Courtesy Dr Claude Alvares)

[This article was first published in The Illustrated Weekly of India, March 23, 1986; the issues remain relevant – ed.)
User Comments Post a Comment
Pl see the threat to Asia's rice culture 
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16199 
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9562 
That will affect 3.7 billion directly.
Arun
January 13, 2012 Report Abuse
Did Claude write this article? quite a pesky old man.
Monua
January 13, 2012 Report Abuse
Every Indian, starting from the President of India, down to the smallest farmer of this country, who is the backbone of Indian agriculture, if he or she dearly loves our motherland, must read this article to understand what treachery was done to Indian agriculture. Go to Kuttanad and Palakkad, the "rice bowl" of Kerala State, to get a first hand impression of what this so-called "rice revolution" has done. Or, go to Vidharbha district in Maharashtra State, to see for yourself what the so-called high input technology has done to the cotton farmer. Or better, still, go to Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh, the "cradle" of the green revolution to see for yourself what happened to our, once very rich and fertile soils. The soils are ruined, there are hundreds of acres, where even a single blade of grass will not grow, the ground water is so highly polluted with nitrate ion that it is no more potable. If you want further proof of this ruinous "tread mill" farming, go to Gurdaspur in Punjab, you encounter the maximum of cancer patients. In this treeacherous game, just one man profited, the rest of the country was sold to the US power game. The justification that we needed to come out of the "ship-to-mouth" situation, will not wash if we critically analyse the price this nation has paid, especially when, an alternative route was availble at the time. But, that was not to be. Personal greed was at the centre of everything. History of Indian agriculture is now proving, almost after half a century later, that we took the wrong route to end up in this disastrous situation. We still have alternatives to correct our path, but, those who speak this are being stifled, by the very same power, which wanted to give the reins of ths country to an alien nation 

Jai Hind, Jai Bharat Mata! 

K.P.Prabhakaran Nair
K.P.Prabhakaran Nair
January 13, 2012 Report Abuse
There is a truism that I remember: the shameless ones enjoy what is due to the incompetent ones! Ever since Nehru took over the reins of this country we have been doomed to be the most incompetent ones.
P M Ravindran
January 13, 2012 Report Abuse
This symbolizes Colonialism by other means and the endless perfidy of the Indian bureaucrat/politician. 
I believe the highest yield per acre is the variety grown in the NE, without any fertilizer,which the Japanese have already studied in order to implement in their own country.
seadog4227
January 14, 2012 Report Abuse
The article submitted here is in relation to other articles on this site on American imperialism on GM seeds. Also another article written by P sainath in Hindu early Jan 2012. All these indicate the US imperialistic attitudes well supported by Indian Politicians and Bureaucrats (mostly unread and ill informed) that paved the way for the present crisis that farmers are undergoing in this country. 

Now, may I request the scientists who read these articles to kindly paste the ways to identify GM vegetables, native version of rice and related literatures for common man to avoid falling in this trap. 

Regards
P JAYAKUMAR
January 14, 2012 Report Abuse
Very important article
VVB
January 14, 2012 Report Abuse
thanks for this very informative article, revealing the extreme anti-india complex and subversion, destruction agenda using the food and agriculture aspects as weapons. yes, it is a serious issue.
Thirumala
January 14, 2012 Report Abuse
The world's greatest genetic robbery was committed in India, and is vividly recorded in this 1986 article by one of the country's eminent environmentalists, republished on the link below. This issue was never investigated, on the contrary Swaminathan has been given higher and even higher positions. And now it is interesting that a former employ of his MS Swaminathan Foundation is made the head of the National Biodiversity Authority, that is expected to stop gene robbery,
Rasheed
January 15, 2012 Report Abuse
Do read about The Great Gene Robbery II by Devinder Sharma. I am beginning to feel that Baba Ramdev's call to use only Swadeshi goods has a deeper meaning than what Gandhiji ever imagined.
Sujata Srinath
January 15, 2012 Report Abuse
sword, gun, bomb, missiles, trade, microbes, . . . word/pen/media, . . . culture-as-weaponry, genes/food-as-weaponry, love-as-weaponry, what else? . . . 
my humble opinion is that we need to address the 'education' of our 'farmers'/'village-folks'/'tribal-folks'/'people-at-large' on all such and related issues; working at 'national-grass-roots-level'; to protect & guard bhaarateeyate against all such & other damaging influences, from both inside as well as from outside. 
i am more of a kind-of-an-ivory-tower-arm-chair-philosopher-type rather than a field-activist, but this is really my humble suggestion. 
maybe, some groups/co-operatives/net-works have to be built up for this purpose. 
whoever comes forward on these lines will be doing a great service to bhaaratamaata our motherland. 
these ideas may kindly be circulated widely so that some one can catch them, i guess; i do not own it - it belongs to whoever takes it up.
KESHAVA PRASAD HALEMANE
January 16, 2012 Report Abuse
More than one lakh rice varieties, indicates the enormous diversity of our agriculture. How is continuance of such extreme variety possible? Its because, of the jathi setup we had. Each farming jathi, adopted according to the area they settled, and lived there for generations, planting the local rice variety, preserving it during harvest, and then sowing it. This process continued for thousands of years till 40 years back, when all of sudden, the all out war on jathi had started gaining momentum. 

The weakening of jathi (through macaulay education system), made them vulnerable to the scientists, who mis-guided them to commercialise agriculture. 

When jathi setup collapses, almost all kinds of farming techniques would be lost, and already we are losing..
senthil
January 25, 2012 Report Abuse
An excellent mind blowing article.. All these local rice varieties can be preserved only if the local cultural traditions are preserved.. we are an agri-culture country, and NOT agri-business country.. Both the Hindutvavadis, and the congress government are busy promoting western style of agri-business as mark of development.. This article should make hindu intellectuals think from a new perspective - a practical and wholistic approach to environment, food, culture, and tradition.. if not, then its a great tragedy.. So far, such a thought process not found in any hindu intellectuals i know
Raja
January 25, 2012 Report Abuse
Sir 
May i have your permission to translate this in Tamil for my blog? 

Giri
S.Giri Kumar
February 04, 2012 Report Abuse
Home|About Us|Disclaimer|Archives
2008-2013©copyright, All Rights Reserved. Vijayvaani Publishers.

BACK TO TOP