THERE was not a single cabinet meeting where I was not told what should be done and what was required to be done. The ‘what’ part is easy. My answer was always a counter question: ‘How is it to be done’? It is the manner of doing that is necessary for a positive outcome.

The fallacy about agriculture is that action can be taken quickly and that the problem can be solved at the macro level. Pakistan is precisely going through that kind of malaise at this juncture; a lot of activity but nothing concrete on the ground.

If everything were centralized, the current kind of malaise would come through. And what is required are decision makers and not lobbyists or apologists.

Agriculture as it stands now cannot and will not deliver. The interventions appear simple but become complex when taken to the ground level. The plethora of institutions involved is a source of delay. The critical element is momentum in implementation at the grass-root level when a problem comes up, some one has to take a decision that is in the best interest of agriculture.

The second fallacy is that Pakistan has agriculture scientists and that may not be true. A Ph D degree does not necessarily mean that you have scientists on board. The position is that Pakistan only takes genetic material from the international research centres, puts them in the national yield trials and then picks out the best material that has been tested all over the country.

Wheat and maize research institute in Mexico CIMMYT provides wheat and maize genetic material and IRRI in Manila provides the basis for rice production systems. This then is the story of our scientists. They are at the best the doers of other people’s research activity.

The third fallacy is that science alone plays a part. That may not be so for science has to be somehow coupled with art if the intervention has to go off the ground. I know of scores of people who have gone through 30 years of life in the civil services doing nothing but counting who did what wrong in public life. That is why Islamabad is known as ‘Ilzamabad’.

Let me give you some examples of what I mean when I say that any one who determines a new intervention can be scientist irrespective of whether he is a Ph D or not. In rice, the intervention by a priest in Mozambique has given a new twist to rice production in which 50 per cent water is saved and productivity doubled. None of our rice scientists were able to devise what this priest has done. In fact the entire intervention can now be changed in virtually every crop through the process of not accepting the present status quo and believing that a new world awaits agriculture.

Fertiliser that is going to be very expensive, also has a relatively much cheaper substitute. This would have been a roaring success but for the fact that in the very first meeting with regard to this process, the matter was put to rest by the intrigue of the relatives of one of our leading lawyers. That lawyer seemed to have a clout with the President. The disadvantage was converted in to an opportunity. Organic fertiliser would have been available at Rs250 per bag of 50 kg as against the current DAP price of Rs3,200 per bag of 50 kg.

The wisdom of the West can be put to rest that if you use organic fertilizer, the country would be in ruins and famine conditions would emerge. Nothing of this kind happens. For the first year, there will be a slight dip of between five and 10 per cent but the long-term advantages are many. Agriculture by this method is sustainable. We keep on hearing of alkaline soils but does one understand that this is due to DAP and the alkaline nature of the chemical fertilisers.

In the process of providing short-term benefits, the long-term equation is lost. Phosphate and nitrogenous fertilisers can be obtained naturally through the trees that fix these fertilisers in the soil. Some of these trees are indigenous to Pakistan while others are from Africa. The substitutes are available at virtually no cost. All required are organisational ability and, of course, the ability to fight the MNCs.

The moot question is why should other countries help you? Why should they not exploit Pakistan? That is exactly what they have done. The foreign hold on our assets is worse than the physical imperialism of yester years.

The courage to take actions lies with local workers and the liability for persuasion with the local administrator. I was a young civil servant when chemical fertiliser came into existence. The fertiliser was pushed for sale at the exorbitant price of Rs6 per bag. What the World Bank did to ensure that this would be a permanent feature was they asked that institutional arrangements be made for the permanency of the intervention.

So out came the fertiliser import department. Then to correct soils, the soil testing labs were introduced. Then these were taken to tehsil levels and then came the remedial measures that were themselves of a nature that did not enforce confidence.

What then is the solution? It lies with the persons who perceive matters in totality and then take stock as to how the intervention has to come about.

When this substitution in fertiliser takes place, new compulsions will arise. Where will they be able to sell their commodities for markets are few and far between? So one thing will snow ball into another and that is not a bad idea for this nation needs to get off its haunches. There is a certain relish in being independent and taking risky chances? Do it.