Future of INDIA needs Good Governance and Right to Information,

Father of Poverty, Hunger in India – Quack M. S. Swaminathan

Posted by egovindia on August 4, 2006

Father of Poverty, Hunger in India – Quack M. S. Swaminathan



After going through the farm draft policy I am certain that GOI has hired a crook and manipulator again to head the NCF who has failed India repeatedly and is largely responsible for wide spread poverty and hunger in India. It required this crook 18 months in compiling draft document which is not more than 2 days job, both the draft and term of reference are given here.


“4.1 Definition

For the purpose of this Policy, the term “farmers” will include landless agricultural labourers, sharecroppers, tenants, small, marginal and sub-marginal cultivators, farmers with larger holdings, fishers, dairy, sheep, poultry and other farmers involved in animal husbandry, pastoralists, plantation workers, as well as those rural and tribal families engaged in a wide variety of farming related occupations such as sericulture and vermiculture.” Draft National Policy For Farmers, April13, 2006


Firstly he included in definition every one producing food as farmer, though Cultivators, poultry, fishery, plantations are entirely different practices that have completely different practices and problems. Cultivators form over 90% of the farmers. clubbing everything with it was an “Eccentric Idea.” Canal / tube-well irrigation, seeds, harvesting, procurement, storage, transportation and distribution exclusively relates to cultivars than plantations, fisheries etc.


Instead of removing commission agents, middlemen and commission agents and streamlining marketing, his idea of Cooperative Farming, Group Farming, Small Holders Estates, Contract Farming, Corporate Farming, Company Farming, Government State Farms etc is an attempt to “Eradicate Farmers And Turn Them In To Labor.” So the brain behinds Reliance farming plans is this crook Swaminathan.


Quack M.S. Swaminathan


1.  It is important to note that potential yields of local cultivars were much more even at the time of independence than average crop yields today. The missing factors all these years were Irrigation, Farm Credit, Inadequate Support Price, Poor Storage and Handling and Middlemen Exploitation. THERE IS NO IMPROVEMENT IN THESE YEARS Though he was Chairing and members of of over 100 committees or commissions.  


2.  He was among the prime conspirators to propose “Ganga Cauvery Link To Cost $150b” which has been repeatedly thrust on India in different forms. Food can be produced in Ganga Basin itself using 50 billion tons of water efficiently and exporting 30 MT of food to South.


Ø      He is so stupid that he perhaps never knew that $150b or of the cost of Ganga Cauvery Link Canal will be charged to TN or other partners that shall make TN bankrupt. Eventually little or no water may reach Cauvery due to losses on way.


3.  Wasteful Dams on Narmada, release of 500 maf water in Thar Desert, destroying desert eco system affecting Monsoon have severely impacted agriculture.


4.  In the above link you have the manipulative skills of Quack PhD holder, getting rewarded for non performance.


5. The following article explains how he manipulated Scientific Papers etc.


6.  But let me add the crucial observation that “India Imported 18,000 Tons of Mexican Wheat” is an illustration that IARI seeds program was a failure. And he completely failed from 1952-67 period during which time he climbed to become “Director” of IARI rewarded for all the failures.


7.   Most irrigation projects failed largely because “Unfertile or Suitable Farm Lands Were Identified” for irrigation, he was member responsible selection of unfertile lands.  


8.  Looking at his continuous Chairing of several committees since 1982 from age 57 onwards indicates his gross failure and getting rewarded for non performance.


9.  Is it not a shame that India could not find a replacement of M.S. Swaminathan “Morris Oxford” – Dented and Rusty Ambassador of Indian Agriculture in 50 years?


Ravinder Singh


In an article he was asked to provide for the report Swaminathan tells his readers how, ‘Genes have been transferred by scientists in India from Amaranthus to potato for improving protein quality and quantity’. This information is marked out in bold type. In fact, however, this GM potato has been shown to be little more than hype. Even Prof. C Kameswara Rao – a keen biotech supporter – has pointed out that it is ‘unlikely to see the light of the day in this decade’. According to Prof Rao, ‘I noticed that the potato used to make wafer chips in England has 6.0 to 6.5 per cent of protein, while that of the GE potato is only about 2.5 per cent. I do not understand how this dismal product could generate so much euphoria…’ (‘Dismal’ GM potato a decade away)


Just how credible Swaminathan and his promotion of a locally aware biotechnology really are remains open to question. His track record remains controversial and some, like Dr Claude Alvares of the Goa Institute, accuse him of being a shrewd political operator whose real strength lies in knowing how to get things done and how to adapt his rhetoric to create a veneer of public acceptability:



Here’s a profile of the Godfather of India’s Green Revolution, M.S. Swaminathan who’s a key speaker at the 3-day International Conference which opens in New Delhi, India, today (Tuesday): “Agricultural Biotechnology: Ushering in the Second Green Revolution”.

Swaminathan, India’s premier Green Revolution scientist, has a talent for dressing up the industry lobby’s agenda in the rhetoric of village India, women’s empowerment, eco-tech etc., creating a facade of an unthreatening, ecologically and socially sensitive biotechnology ‘domesticated’ to local conditions.

But how credible Swaminathan and his promotion of a locally aware biotechnology really are remains open to question. His track record remains controversial. There are accusations of scientific fraud as well as scandals involving the suicide of scientists at the institute from which he launched the Green Revolution. But these have been buried beneath a plethora of awards and honours.

The real importance of Swaminathan’s record is that it points to the errors India will repeat if it embarks on a Swaminathan-led “Second Green Revolution”.

M.S. Swaminathan – a GM WATCH profile

(for all the links: )

Since 1988 the plant geneticist Monkombu Sambasivan Swaminathan has headed his own M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) in Chennai (Madras) India. The Foundation sees GM crops, and biotechnology in general, not only as having immense potential but as ‘the only way we can face the challenges of the future’. It also sees India as needing to ‘move forward vigorously in mobilising the power of biotechnology’ in order not to lag behind China and more developed countries. (The Chennai Declaration: Bridging the Genetic Divide)

As M.S. Swaminathan is considered the Godfather of the Green Revolution in India, his promotion of GM crops is inevitably projected as an ushering in of a second Green Revolution. Indeed, that is the title of an International Conference in August 2004 in New Delhi, organised by the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation in partnership with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the biotech industry-backed International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application (ISAAA).

The conference, whose speakers include Swaminathan, has been organized to ‘deliberate on the recommendations of the Task Force on Application of Biotechnology in Agriculture’. This Task Force, headed by Swaminathan, had been charged by the Indian Government with the task of making recommendations on how to reform India’s biosafety system.

The Task Force’s recommendations have proved controversial. Greenpeace India accused it of seeking ‘to strip away regulation of biotechnology, rather than improve it’ while P.V. Satheesh of the Deccan Development Society had earlier warned that the real agenda behind the reforms was to introduce ‘fast track approval’. (Swaminathan Panel Recommendations on Biotechnology Flawed and Dangerous)

Although a GM proponent, Swaminathan does not present as a pugnacious propagandist for the technology in the style of Norman Borlaug, that other Green Revolution scientist. For instance, the alternative title of Swaminathan’s Foundation is ‘The Centre for Research on Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development’. And traditional organic farming is researched there alongside genetic engineering which Swaminathan argues can assist organic agriculture. The Foundation is also at great pains to emphasise the need for technology development and dissemination to be ‘pro-nature, pro-poor, and pro-women’ in orientation. Similarly, Swaminathan and the Foundation promote the idea of ‘biovillages’, which combine IT and biotechnology with the rhetoric of village india, women’s empowerment, etc.

This more sophisticated stance, together with Swaminathan’s international status as the scientist-hero who brought about India’s Green Revolution, has meant that biotechnology supporters have found him an attractive figure to involve in the promotion of GM crops both in India and beyond. In UNDP’s highly controversial Human Development Report 2001, for instance, the Lead Author, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, in seeking to justify the report’s support for GM crops quotes Swaminathan. Swaminathan, in turn, quotes Ghandi on the need to remember the poor.

In an article he was asked to provide for the report Swaminathan tells his readers how, ‘Genes have been transferred by scientists in India from Amaranthus to potato for improving protein quality and quantity’. This information is marked out in bold type. In fact, however, this GM potato has been shown to be little more than hype. Even Prof. C Kameswara Rao – a keen biotech supporter – has pointed out that it is ‘unlikely to see the light of the day in this decade’. According to Prof Rao, ‘I noticed that the potato used to make wafer chips in England has 6.0 to 6.5 per cent of protein, while that of the GE potato is only about 2.5 per cent. I do not understand how this dismal product could generate so much euphoria…’ (‘Dismal’ GM potato a decade away)

The answer to Rao’s question is simple. The fact that the GM potato is a locally-led and philanthropically directed project gives it the hallmarks of acceptability. This makes it a perfect poster child for promoting the technology. In a similar way, Swaminathan provides an acceptable face for GM crops in the Third World, creating a facade of an unthreatening, ecologically and socially sensitive biotechnology ‘domesticated’ to local conditions.

Just how credible Swaminathan and his promotion of a locally aware biotechnology really are remains open to question. His track record remains controversial and some, like Dr Claude Alvares of the Goa Institute, accuse him of being a shrewd political operator whose real strength lies in knowing how to get things done and how to adapt his rhetoric to create a veneer of public acceptability:

‘At a Gandhi seminar, he will speak on Gandhi. At a meeting in Madras, on the necessity for combine harvesters. At another meeting on appropriate technology, he will plump for organic manure. At a talk in London, he will speak on the necessity of chemical fertilizers. He will label slum dwellers “ecological refugees”, and advertise his career as a quest for “imparting an ecological basis to productivity improvement”. This, after presiding over, and indiscriminately furthering, one of the ecologically most devastating technologies of modern times – the [High Yielding Varieties] package of the Green Revolution.’

While Swaminathan is feted around the globe as the hero of India’s Green Revolution, the manner in which he achieved such prominence is much less well known. He did so, charges Alvares, in a way that has a parallel in India claiming credit for its conquest of space when it was riding piggyback on Soviet science and technology. Swaminathan imported borrowed science evolved in Mexico by Norman Borlang and American interests. In taking India down this path, his critics say, he neglected high yielding indigenous varieties adapted to local conditions in favour of chemical and irrigation dependent varieties which have with time had adverse effects on both productivity and the environment, often with catastrophic consequences for India’s millions of small and marginal farmers.


It is also alleged that Swaminathan’s rise to prominence went hand in hand with the suppression of the work of Indian scientists who were making a case within the agricultural mainstream for less input-intensive farming. One of these was Dr R.H. Richharia who worked all his life to develop indigenous rice species and whose guiding principle was, ‘Your work is only valuable if it helps the poor farmers’. Richaria almost single-handedly put together a germplasm collection of over 20,000 rice varieties. Currently in the possession of the Indira Gandhi Agricultural University in Chhattisgarh; this collection was at the centre of a major controversy when Syngenta attempted to take it over under the guise of collaborative research, a move only thwarted by civil society pressures. Dr Richaria himself sees Swaminathan and his backers as being linked to both his removal from his post at the Central Rice Research Institute and attempts to gain control over his germplasm collection. Of the latter he says, ‘He was behind it all, because he held all the power… He was the all in all.’ (Crushed but not defeated)

Perhaps most disturbingly, Swaminathan has been censured for making misleading scientific claims and has been linked to scandals involving the suicide of scientists at the institute from which he launched the Green Revolution. However, even these scandals, as we shall see, have had no serious adverse impact on Swaminathan’s career.

He is the recipient of almost every conceivable award – national and international. He has also been India’s Secretary for Agriculture (1980-81), the Director of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (1966-72), the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (1972-80) and the International Rice Research Institute (1982-88), the Independent Chairman of the FAO Council (1981-85), and the President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1984-90).

Swaminathan was born in India in 1925 in what is now the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. He almost became a police officer, but a change of career path led to a Ph.d in genetics from Cambridge in 1952. By 1966, Swaminathan was Director of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) in New Delhi. With help from the Rockefeller Foundation, he started importing large quantities of cross-bred wheat seed developed by Norman Borlaug in Mexico. Swaminathan disseminated these plants, which were far more tolerant of chemical fertilisers, in the Punjab. He would later marry this plant to an Indian variety. ‘Our history,’ he says, ‘changed from that time.’

Swaminathan’s apparent scientific successes were first acknowledged in 1971 with the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership. This award set the precedent for a plethora of awards and honours in the years to come, including over 40 honorary doctorates from universities around the world and the World Food Prize in 1987.

As well as achieving a rapid dissemination of Norman Borlang’s dwarf strains of Mexican wheat, Swaminathan claimed to have developed a new wheat (Sharbati Sonora) by subjecting the Mexican parent lines of the Sonora variety to radiation. At a popular lecture in Delhi in 1967, Swaminathan claimed that Sharbati Sonora contained as much protein and lysine as milk. Dr. Claude Alvares takes up the story:

‘In three subsequent papers he continued to claim a high lysine content. In 1967, Dr Y.P. Gupta, an Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) scientist, disputed the claim and said that the figures had been manipulated. A number of researchers from abroad also stated that the lysine content of Swaminathan’s wheat and that of the Mexican wheat did not differ in any significant content. Finally the Central International de Mejoramiento de Maizy Trigo (CIMMYT) itself reported in 1969 that there was no significant difference between Sonora and Sharbati Sonora.

Yet nine months after the CIMMYT report appeared, Swaminathan once again submitted the 1967 Food Industries paper to a short lived journal called Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, in which he again claimed a value of two and half times the normal lysine value for Sharbati Sonora. Eight months later [in 1971], he was given the Magsaysay Award, for having “developed a wheat variety containing three per cent lysine”, and which, the Magsaysay Foundation claimed, “was now alleviating the deficiency of essential amino acids in the Indian diet so harmful particularly to brain development in young children.” Every word of the citation was false… The award, however, was instrumental in Swaminathan being made the director general of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)’.

What brought the lysine scandal to public notice was the suicide in May 1972 of Dr. Vinod Shah, an agronomist at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute. The IARI was where Swaminathan had launched his Green Revolution.

According to Bharat Dogra, a very senior and respected journalist in India who has researched Swaminathan and contemporary agricultural scientists for many years, Dr Shah had been repelled by the ‘glaring irregularities, victimisation, nepotism, bogus research, sycophancy’ he had found at the IARI. (Bharat Dogra, The Life and Work of Dr R.H. Richaria, p.99) Dr Shah’s death was not the only suicide by a scientist at the institute but ‘it attracted more attention partly because of his youth and partly because of the suicide note left behind by him in which he clearly explained the dishonesty and irregularities… which had disillusioned him so much.’ (Bharat Dogra, p.100)

It also emerged that Dr Shah had met with Swaminathan, the IARI’s Director, some time before he committed suicide. Following that meeting, he had stopped taking any food. His suicide note was addressed personally to Dr Swaminathan. It alleged, ‘A lot of unscientific data are collected to fit in your line of thinking.’ It also said, ‘A person with ideas and constructive scientific criticism is always victimised’. (Bharat Dogra, p.107)

An Achievement Audit Committee Report had already been critical of the ‘pompous or exaggerated statements made in IARI documents’ (Bharat Dogra, p.101) as well as of the generally poor quality of research at Swaminathan’s Institute – research which failed to meet the claims made for it. And the lysine content of Swaminathanís wheat was not the only case of ‘blatantly dishonest research’ to come to light in the enquiries made following the allegations contained in Dr Shah’s suicide note. (Bharat Dogra, p.102)

A pulse variety known as Baisaki Moong was claimed to have achieved very high yields in IARI research in the late 60s and early 70s. However, enquiries showed that in trials around the country its performance had been nowhere near as good. In Punjab and Delhi, for instance, ‘the yields were only about half of those claimed to have been obtained in the IARI experiemnts’  (Bharat Dogra, p.102).

Claims relating to a super-nutritious maize developed at IARI also ‘became a major scientific scandal’. Initially the research had been credited with having developed ‘a new strain of maize with the protein content doubled and having nutritious value like milk’ It was even claimed that mothers were reporting that children fed on this maize were less irritable than milk-fed babies. ‘Subsequent experience revealed all such claims to be figments of imagination’. (Bharat Dogra, p.103)

The most serious accusations had come from Dr Y.P. Gupta of the Bio-Chemistry Division of the IARI. Gupta had worked on the lysine content of various wheat varieties and contested Swaminathan’s published data on the protein and lysine content of Sharbati Sonora from an early stage. Gupta specifically alleged that the figure for Sharbati Sonora’s parent plant had been deliberately reduced in a half-yearly report in order to make Sharbati Sonora appear in a more favourable light.

After the circumstances surrounding Dr Shah’s suicide had caused uproar in the Indian Parliament, the government had felt compelled to appoint an enquiry committee headed by the late Dr P.B. Gajendragadkar, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court. Dr Alvares takes up the story:

‘The committee examined the charge of unjustified claims and ruled against Swaminathan… In 1974, the New Scientist published a detailed report on M S Swaminathan’s lysine falsehoods. Swaminathan survived the attack. Immediately after the Emergency, it was the Statesman in a detailed report dated May 17, 1977, that re-opened the entire debate. It was only on this occasion, for the first time since 1967, that Swaminathan admitted that the data concerning lysine was incorrect. Six years had passed since he had won the Magsaysay Award, which, if the citation was totally wrong, was improperly conferred.’

Swaminathan tried to put down the scandal to an ‘analytical error’ which he said was the fault of one of his subordinates but, Dr Alvares argues, there are other indicators that support a lack of ethics:

‘One is his harassment of all those scientists who had exposed his claims on lysine in the first place. Within a year, for example, of questioning the data in 1967, Dr Y.P. Gupta’s students were taken away from him, he was denied promotions, his junior was selected to become his head, and his application for a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) assignment was held back by the IARI till [after] the due date.’

It was only 15 years later that the Supreme Court of India was able to vindicate Y.P. Gupta. Dr Gupta, the court ruled, ‘has been the victim of unfair treatment’ and the court went on to describe the attitude of his employer as ‘unethical’. It also termed the action of the institute’s academic council, chaired by Swaminathan, as ‘callous’, ‘heartless’, and ‘shocking’. (The Great Gene Robbery)

However, none of this stopped Swaminathan becoming chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet (SACC). Then in 1982 he left India for the highly paid post of Director General of the Rockefeller- Foundation assisted International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), based at Los Banos in the Philippines. After seven years with IRRI, Swaminathan returned to India to devote his efforts to his M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF).

The Foundation is now at the centre of Swaminathan’s promotion of India’s second Green Revolution. Its conferences have provided platforms for the industry. In 2004 two events were organised at Chennai to commemorate ‘the occasion of the International Year of Rice 2004’: a National Colloquium on Molecular Breeding and Shaping the Future of Rice, and a Forum on Biotechnology and the future of rice. Both events were dominated by panelists who favored the introduction of the GM seeds, like Golden Rice Network Coordinator and former Monsanto employee, Gerard Barry and William James Peacock of CSIRO. (GM supporters confronted in India)

An MSSRF event had also provided Gerard Barry with a PR platform four years earlier to promote Monsanto’s provision of royalty-free licenses for the development of ‘golden rice’, as well as the corporation’s willingness to open its rice-genome sequence database to researchers around the world. GM lobbyist C.S. Prakash was another speaker on that occasion. (Gene revolution may not feed all)

Critics like the New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst, Devinder Sharma complain that the right lessons have not yet been learned from Swaminathan’s first Green Revolution before the second is being promoted. The Indian scientist and environmentalist, Vandana Shiva points out that the Green Revolution:

‘has led to reduced genetic diversity, increased vulnerability to pests, soil erosion, water shortages, reduced soil fertility, micronutrient deficiencies, soil contamination, reduced availability of nutritious food crops for the local population, the displacement of vast numbers of small farmers from their land, rural impoverishment and increased tensions and conflicts. The beneficiaries have been the agrochemical industry, large petrochemical companies, manufacturers of agricultural machinery, dam builders and large landowners.’ (The Green Revolution in the Punjab)

And there have been high human costs from forcing the Green Revolution’s industrial farming model onto small and marginal farmers. Writing in response to the news in summer 2004 that many hundreds of poor farmers had once again taken their own lives, often by drinking pesticides, Devinder Sharma noted, ‘the tragedy is that the human cost is entirely being borne by the farmers’.

The greatest irony, writes Sharma, is that ‘those who created the problem in the first instance are the ones who are being asked to provide the solutions.’ (Farm Genocide: The Killing Fields of the Green Revolution)


10 Responses to “Father of Poverty, Hunger in India – Quack M. S. Swaminathan”

  1. anon said

    Excellent and very useful to many. The Ph D should not be considered an achievement beyond an indication of willingness to sacrifice earnings. Science is not for scientists, science is about questioning and even scientists should realize that they need to allow themselves to be questioned. If any scientist believes that he is unquestionable they deserve no right to call themselves a scientist.

  2. A.R.Ramachandran said

    Dear Sir,

    Nice article. I always wondered the link between the hyped success of Green Revolution and the abyss of poverty that Indian farmers have been falling into for years since the Green Revolution (their fate was better before).

    Your article does throw some light on this question and it will be difficult for me to look at Dr.Swaminathan and his contributions in the same light as I have done before.

    Kind Regards, AR

  3. Dear sir,

    Pl send the contact adress of Dr m s swaminathan

  4. Dear Sir,
    Corruption and mismanagement of our public money, land, property and systems, services is common problem faced by every Indian. We all are trying to establish effective transparent system. We all are wishing for ultimate universal balance growth.
    It is possible, we all positive intellectuals join with common mission of restructuring our public administrative system and fight corruption.
    We Indian, at Surat,Gujarat formed Gujarat vichar manch, we train citizens, we help them to utilize RTI, we help to make PIL, and we are fighting for every individual’s problem sincerely.
    Gujarat vichar manch is a unique platform to meet, think and act intellectually. For common mission of ultimate universal balanced growth. Email us to Register complain of every Gujarat and central government, cooperative society, trusts,boards and any corruption and corrupted officer and public servant
    Write article to us-
    On how to fight corruption
    Suggest us –
    Restructuring of effective system
    Donate us –
    To grow and help us to fight corruption without corruption
    Spare and invest your time-
    To serve nation as volunteers in your area
    Regular Meeting of Gujarat vichar manch held every Sunday at 4 pm at- goverdhan wadi, opp pratik arcade, bhagatalav, nanavat. Surat, Gujarat, India.395008.
    President-,Shri pradip bhai deputy,M-9327002514.
    Vice president-,Shri vithalbhai Patel,M-09825378177
    For getting RTI-help & to disclose corruption cases
    inform us on09228484459.Lagerhonatubhai, And Bhupendra shah09427473908

    • Dr.V.Nandagopal said

      It is a fact even now, the then DG of ICAR Dr.Mangala Rai was a fraud by all means. He never ever researched excepting for his M.Sc(Ag) and Ph.D from which he has published in India about 12 articles. Not a single research article published in international journals. But he claimed that he has published more than 200 articles.
      I have full details. I wrote while he was in the DG’s chair and I was a Senior Scientist. No reply. He refused to meet me.

      May ICAR Directors are like him. They know how to butter the higher ups and get the post.

      The ADG Plant protection of ICAR has only a few published articles. He also could not spare me his publications. The then ASRB Chairman Dr.C.D Mayee refused or so to say dodged to supply me his publication lists. He has almost with university guiding students. All frauds are running the premier institute the ICAR. When I raised their frauds they have implicated me in cases.

      Even Scientist wrote me why one should publish be close to higher ups as Dr.Mangala Rai. He was always with DDG or DG buttering them and finally he got the post of DG for 5 years and extension for 2 years and further 6 months. What a tragedy for Indian agriculture. How our beloved country improve.


  5. V.Nandagopal said

    Sir, You are talking about Dr.M.S.Swaminathan. By virtue of his birth,relation a secretary, he became so famous. There are some forgotten actual heroes of Research achievements, like Dr.M.V.Rao, special DG of ICAR, DR.Siddiq the ex.DDG of ICAR whose contribution in terms of varieties in wheat and rice respectively and their publications could not help them to reach them to DG level. Whereas, a bogus scientist Dr.Mangala Rai who was a co-ordinator of one the oilseeds, ADG,DDG, DG for 5 years, 2 years extension,6months extension as DG of ICAR was a total failure and a fraud who claimed to have published more that 200 research articles in National and International journals. But actually, his publications were only 12 in Indian journals. Name itself is sufficient for higher posts in India. Even now, a scientist not found fit to be a Director of an Institute is selected as DDG in ICAR. Even the ex.ASRB Charman could not spare his publication lists for a RTI request -that means no worth publications-but he was Chairman of ASRB. This is India. Our beloved country. Let us keep quit otherwise you will be implicated in false cases.

  6. Nagar Iyer said

    Throw the AGRICULTURE STUDIES, SCIENTISTIS out of our Country.
    We do not need any studies, research on Agriculture.
    Our VEDIC ORGANIC FARMING is the best form of agriculture.

    2. VOF only can yield NUTRITIOUNS, TOXIN FREE food. Chem Farming & GM will destroy food

    3. VOF only can yield sufficient food to feed our billions.


    5. The claims that GREEN REVOLUTION using CHEMICALS result in INCREASED FOOD PRODUCTION are totally BOGUS.

    6. GREEN REVOLUTION started in the 1960s. FOOD PRODUCTION increased by 4 times since then but this increase is due to a 20-FOLD-INCREASE in AREA UNDER CULTIVATION. In fact GREEN REVOLUTION resulted in DECLINE in FARM PRODUCTIVITY

  7. rangarajan said

    swaminathan is a bogus

  8. raju said

    stupid Tamilnadu people keep on living on others shame on ur part

  9. maddesh said

    the great swaminathan brought seeds from norman bourlaug and planted in india i always wonder that what hes has made in green revolution waste taminla nadu people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: