He had reasons to be sceptical. With average yield being 6.5 tonnes per hectare in China and only 3.3 tonnes in India, it was certainly too good to be true. Moreover, the claim dated back to 2011 but had just been validated by the international community of scientists. Prof Yuan had also examined photographs of the crop and found the grains to be deficient. And one Bihar farmer was quoted by some reports as saying that they had very little sunshine in 2011, which the professor pointed out was essential for a good crop.
Even more importantly, it had taken him 40 years of research and fieldwork to achieve the world record in China. But the farmers in Bihar had taken to the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) for the first time in 2010-11.
Multinational seed corporations, rice research institutes funded by the World Bank and scientists have been struggling for the past several decades to improve the yield, without much success. But SRI, which was first initiated in 1983 by a French Jesuit priest in Madagascar, seems to have finally achieved a breakthrough and without much assistance from them either.
Officials in Bihar brush aside the criticism from China. “There was a stream of scientists from India and abroad, but no Chinese scientist visited Nalanda to examine the claim,” says Rajiv Ranjan, a young agriculture graduate posted in Nalanda. “The world record was set on a demonstration plot and measured before both scientists and farmers.” Ranjan has now written to Prof Yuan and explained the details.
Dr Norman Uphoff of Cornell University goes on to elaborate, “These results were achieved with hybrid varieties which derive from Yuan’s own innovation of hybridising rice, considered for decades by most rice scientists to be impossible.” Adds Amir Kassam of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, “Go to the fields and see the evidence.”
Nitish Kumar—not the Bihar chief minister, but a farmer with a land holding of just over an acre—told Outlook that the last few years had made a definite difference. “Earlier I used to struggle to feed even four people. But now I am comfortable feeding eight,” he said. Teacher and farmer Farrukh Nadim echoes the claim. “The new technique has certainly doubled, even trebled, the yield and farmers who could barely afford a bicycle are now seen on motorcycles. The prosperity is very visible.” Expectedly, land prices too have skyrocketed in the district.
As a technique, SRI requires much less water and does not use chemical fertilisers or GM seeds. Since every kilo of rice has traditionally required 4,000-5,000 litres of water, a 20 to 30 per cent of water saved is considered a major leap forward indeed. Being labour-intensive, the technique has been dismissed as “a waste of time” in much of the Western world. But in the populous rice-growing areas in Asia, where the average plot size is often less than a hectare, it promises to be nothing short of revolutionary.
SRI, as Louisiana State University professor emeritus Dr Manjit Kang told Outlook in an e-mail, involves transplanting very young seedlings, much younger than used in the traditional system; placing only one germinating seed in the field instead of bunching them together; keeping the soil just wet and not flooding it with water; and keeping the seeds equidistant between and within rows so that each seed gets its share of air, moisture and sunshine.
With rice being the staple of half the world, we may just have seen the beginning of the next green revolution.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Why is there no effort to systematically teach other farmers of this method too?
Like anything else, will they have to pay to learn this, while till then only a handful of farmers make the money?
It is nice to know that a new rice growing method called ‘System of Rice Intensification’ (SRI) has become so successful that the Bihar farmer who used that method of farming has broken a world record of rice productivity per hectare. Really I wonder how many farmers in States like Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab where rice is grown know about success story of SRI. I wish that the government of Bihar gives good publicity to the achievements of the concerned district where farmers have made spectacular advances in productivity and successful Nalanda farmers offer training to others to use SRI. This way Bihar farmers can usher the second rice revolution. Many congratulations and best wishes to the Nalanda farmers!
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT