Features
New century, old story: War ends as social tragedy, continues as political farce
(Fifty years after 1971: Concluding Part)
The violence of 1983 impacted the Tamils indiscriminately and directly led to the emergence of the Tamil diaspora. On the other hand, the backlash to 1983 from outside Sri Lanka, especially the West and human rights organizations, may have been a factor in the energization of the JC school after 1983. The UNP government of the day wholly owned the 1983 disaster and deserved a great deal more than whatever blame it got and wherever it came from. JC was opposed to the UNP government’s open economy swindle and its cultural sellout, and it resented the government’s cunning approach to the Tamil national question. That was to parley with Tamil politicians in secret, and organize violence against Tamil civilians in the open. When 1983 went out of control, the backlash was not only against the government, but besmirched the entire Sinhalese society, including those who were revolted by the violence and others who were intractably opposed to the government. And there were backlash echoes from different fragments in the Sri Lankan social formation.
by Rajan Philips
Sri Lanka didn’t need a Y2K (year 2000) problem at the dawn of the 21st century, indeed, the third millennium. The island of millenniums had enough baggage from the old century to carry over into the new century, or from the old millennium to the new. Old problems were carried with new mutations and whole new other ones were added. The war that was muddled through the nineties consumed almost the entire first decade of the new century, before ending in 2009. The end of the war did end much of the social tragedy that it created, but it did not end the farcical continuation of war by political means. Mercifully, the killings ended but the agony of the living has persisted with no certainty about the dead and the missing. Not to mention the endless spat over how many died, with nary a thought or hand for the survivors of war and their livelihood struggles.
The war added new mutations to the old national question. The emergence of the Tamil diaspora and with it the phenomenon of diasporic nationalism, are developments that no one could have foreseen even as late as 1982. Equally, at both the state and societal levels, Sri Lanka has not fully come to terms with the rise of new strands of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism outside the ambits of mainstream political parties among the Sinhalese. Add to these, the coming of age of Muslim nationalism after having long been in the shadows of Sinhala and Tamil politics. These developments have defined the 21st century course of Sri Lanka’s never ending constitutional odyssey, especially involving the fate or the future of the Thirteenth Amendment, the Provincial Councils, and even the Executive Presidency.
A new dimension to the course of politics was provided by the end of the war itself, rather by the debate over how the war ended and whether or not war crimes were committed. Twelve years after the war ended, there are no answers in sight to any of these questions. There are no permanently correct answers in politics, but the task of every generation is to keep the balance on the side of more correct than incorrect answers. As things are in 2021, and thanks to an untoward juncture of a global pandemic and government incompetence, there are mostly only incorrect answers and hardly any correct answers to the many questions that Sri Lankans are facing. The current juncture will pass one way or another, but the questions that have been raised in the aftermath of the war are not likely to be answered satisfactorily any time soon.
A Dysfunctional Family
If Sri Lanka is a family of nationalisms, it has been for the most part a dysfunctional one. This is because Sri Lanka’s nationalisms have grown into being more conflictual and competitive than being complementary. The war and its aftermaths would appear to have exacerbated these tendencies and the unfolding of diasporic and Jathika Chinthanya phenomena would certainly attest to this. At the same time, their emergence also provide insights into the social and cultural roots of the nationalist stirrings among the Sinhalese, Tamils and the Muslims. Identifying and sharing these insights is needed to get rid of the always simplistic, and very often offensive, stereotypes which for far too long informed each community’s understanding of the other.
As stereotypes go, “Mahavamsa mindset” apparently sums up the Tamil understanding of Sinhala nationalism. For the Sinhalese, Tamil nationalistic claims are nothing more than a new ruse for Vellala domination. And Sri Lankan Muslim nationalism is simply rejected as Sri Lankan manifestation of global Islamic fundamentalism. There is more to each nationalism than these stereotypes, and each involves the lives and mores of people that cannot be summarily dismissed in any approach to accommodating them and making them complementary to one another. There are people in each community who do not subscribe to the narrow nationalistic claims that are made on behalf of their community. And stereotyping smudges them as well out of recognition.
It might not be widely known outside the JC universe that the political roots of the two intellectual prime movers (Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekara and Prof. Nalin de Silva) behind JC are traceable more to Marxism and left politics than to any Mahavamsa mindset. In fact, one of them (Prof. de Silva) is known to have been a defender of the right of self-determination of the Tamil people before 1983. The open economy politics that began in 1977 and its social eruption in 1983 have more to do with the emergence of the Tamil diaspora and the Jathika Chinthanya soul searching among the Sinhalese intelligentsia, than anything that stereotypical explanations can provide.
The violence of 1983 impacted the Tamils indiscriminately and directly led to the emergence of the Tamil diaspora. On the other hand, the backlash to 1983 from outside Sri Lanka, especially the West and human rights organizations, may have been a factor in the energization of the JC school after 1983. The UNP government of the day wholly owned the 1983 disaster and deserved a great deal more than whatever blame it got and wherever it came from. JC was opposed to the UNP government’s open economy swindle and its cultural sellout, and it resented the government’s cunning approach to the Tamil national question. That was to parley with Tamil politicians in secret, and organize violence against Tamil civilians in the open. When 1983 went out of control, the backlash was not only against the government, but besmirched the entire Sinhalese society, including those who were revolted by the violence and others who were intractably opposed to the government. And there were backlash echoes from different fragments in the Sri Lankan social formation.
The fragmentation of the social formation and the creation of multiple political spaces was another outcome of the open economy and the political makeover under the UNP government. Thus, there was a new sociopolitical space for the off springs of the old, westernized Ceylonese middle class. It is not unfair to characterize the NGOs as being among the occupants of this space. And the children of 1956 were not neglected, at least from the economic standpoint. The more mobile among them easily filled up the economic spaces that the open economy created.
And for their social reproduction outside the vernacular, with a western accent, President Jayewardene gave them international schools. If that was JRJ’s belated rejoinder to the schools’ takeover of the 1960s, and it certainly was, he was not particularly looking to provide reparation to the Churches who lost their schools then. Worse, JRJ snobbishly abandoned the entire national school system, which he had the absolute power to retool anyway he wanted – to provide international education with a national accent to the children of 1977.
There was another aspect to the open economy that the UNP, and every government thereafter, neither recognized nor addressed. It was the orphaning of the state sector at the altar of the open economy. The salaries and compensation levels in the state sector were instantly and massively devalued by the opening of the economy and the aligning of market prices and private sector remunerations to global rates. I do not think this anomaly has been satisfactorily addressed to date. If Singapore is the vaunted model, you cannot have a competitive public sector without matching compensation with the private sector. It is no secret that some of the best and the brightest in a whole generation opted not to join the Central Bank, the universities or government institutions.
Political Limitations
The upshot of these changes was the emergence of two contending formations. One of the two, the NGO-formation (to call it loosely with no disparagement intended), wanted to use 1983 as a platform to recast Sri Lanka’s political society fundamentally different from what had led to the catastrophe of 1983. The new society would be plural and secular, would celebrate its diversity and welcome devolution. Intellectually, ethno-nationalism would be called out for what it is not – not an essential human condition.
The other, the JC-formation (so called, for convenience), has diametrically been opposed to any and all of the above. The JC thinking is also indicative of the unique exceptionalism that Sinhala Buddhist nationalism is uniquely constrained to project unlike Tamil nationalism or Muslim nationalism, both of which have external cultural validations to fall back on by virtue of language (in South India) and religion (Islam), respectively. The JC response in effect might be seen as a response to a sense of besiegement of the Sinhalese by forces from within (NGOs) and without (the West).
At the political level, the NGO formation found its spearheads alternatingly in Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe. Their accomplishments fell far below expectations. The JC formation waited patiently for the most authentic Sinhala Buddhist leader in Mahinda Rajapaksa, and had its golden decade from 2005 to 2015. The rest of the Sri Lankan political field, both individuals and organizations and of all ethnic groups, have been scurrying between the two main political polarities at regular intervals. The JVP and the JHU, both beneficiaries of JC affiliations at some point, have been in both political alliances and have also splintered over which side they should be permanently aligned with. The Tamil and the Muslim political parties have had their cracks of affiliations with the two main alliances and have little to show as results for their efforts.
Mahinda Rajapaksa had his setback when the people rejected his attempt to extend his presidency to a third term. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected promising vistas of prosperity and splendour. But the country is living through a rather dismal record of incompetence quite different from what was handsomely promised. The ‘young’ SLPP that was seen by some as a permanent incubator of future presidents. Instead, the limitations of the executive presidency have been exposed like never before. The JVP is now making a mark as a sharp opposition party in parliament. JHU’s Champika Ranawaka, perhaps the only politician with credible presidential ambition but without a political vehicle of his own, is now a member of convenience in Sajith Premadasa’s Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB).
Fifty years ago, the JVP launched its first abortive insurrection ostensibly to liberate the rural poor through the agency of its youth. Within twenty years, the JVP staged its second coming and the Tamil militants launched their violent struggle. They have all run their course which came to an end in 2009. Political violence used to be justified as the last resort after all other avenues have been exhausted. The violent struggles in Sri Lanka from 1971 to the Easter bombings in 2019 were not launched after all other avenues were exhausted. The question to ask fifty years after 1971 is – what happens after the ultimatums of political violence have all been tried and exhausted as well? Should politics be reduced to a farce as the continuation of war by other means?
Features
Discovery of molecular structure of primary genetic material of life
World DNA Day falls on 25 April:
On 25 April 1953, Watson and Crick published an article, in the acclaimed journal “Nature” titled “Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribonucleic acid”.
The one-page article largely based on theoretical arguments and the previous work of Rosalind Franklin who examined DNA using X-rays, changed the world forever by explaining how genetic information is copied and transmitted.
Everyone concerned with promoting science in the country should be aware of the story behind the discovery of DNA and tell it to their children and students and remind the policymakers.
The world commemorates the transformative event on 25th April every year. An example vividly illustrates how intense curiosity and imagination, rather than mere indulgence in technologies, leads to groundbreaking discoveries.
DNA Day is also intended to celebrate the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003. Genome means the entire set of genetic information characterising an organism.
Heredity and inheritance
Heredity is the cause of transferring traits from parents to their offspring. The closely related word “inheritance “refers to the specific nature of the transmitted trait. For example, we say intelligence is hereditary in their family and he inherited his father’s intelligence.
The resemblance of progeny to parentage was common knowledge, taken for granted and considered a blending of maternal and paternal traits. Philosophers of antiquity proposed several theories to explain the inheritance of parental traits by the offspring. Hippocrates believed the essence of all body parts of the parents are incorporated into the male and female germinal essence and therefore the offspring display characteristics as a proportionate blend. Aristotle offered a different explanation. He argued that the active principle is in the male seminal fluid and the mother’s blood provided the original body material. The inaccuracy of these theories was apparent. Sometimes children possess qualities akin to grandparents rather than parents. Fathers or mothers of humans and animals, deformed by accidents or disease, gave birth to normal children- a clear proof that the acquired characters are not inherited. Children of a blue-eyed mother and a brown-eyed father have either blue or brown eyes but not a blend of blue and brown.
Two golden sayings in our culture, “Arae gathi nare” and “Jammeta wada lokuei purrudha” (“Hereditary characters persist” and “Habits overtake heredity “), agree more with modern genetics, than the views of Hippocrates and Aristotle.
Gregor Mendal’s groundbreaking experiment
The Austrian mathematician cum botanist, Gregor Mendel was the first to conduct a systematic investigation to understand the cause of heredity. Being unconvinced of the traditional explanations, he carried out a series of experiments lasting eight years to determine how the traits (plant height, seed color, flower color etc.) of pea plants are transmitted from generation to generation. When Mendel cross pollinated tall and short plants, he found that the progeny was entirely tall. However, when first generation tall plants were allowed to self-pollinate, the missing short trait reappeared at a statistically significant probability of 25 percent. Mendel’s work provided an unequivocal proof that traits do not blend but exist as unique entities, manifested from generation to generation following a predictable mathematical pattern.
Mendel’s finding remained unrecognized for more than 30 years. His ideas were too far ahead of time and biologists were shy of mathematics. In the early 1900s several European botanists arrived at the same conclusion based on independent experiments. With the advancement of microscopy, a great deal of information about plant and animal cells was gathered. A key finding was the presence of colored bodies in the cell nucleus named chromosomes, seen separating during cell division, leading to the hypothesis that Mendel’s genetic units (genes) should be physical entities present in the chromosomes.
Chemists and biologists wondered what the genetic material in chromosomes made off. Is it a protein, carbohydrate or a lipid? Most biological materials are constituted of these substances.
Discovery of DNA
Great discoveries are made by unusual people. The Swiss Friedrich Miescher belonged to a clan of reputed physicians. Following family tradition, he qualified as a doctor but did not engage in profitable practice of medicine. He decided to do research to understand the foundations of life. In search for new biological substances, he experimented with pus deposited in bandages and extracted a substance rich in phosphates but very different from proteins. The new substance called “nuclein” was indeed DNA. Later, the German biochemist Albrecht Kossel following the Miescher’s work, showed that DNA contains four crucial compounds, adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T), known as nucleotide bases.
Avery – MacLeod – McCarthy Experiment
The flu pandemic of 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide due to the pneumonia that followed the viral infection. Pneumonia was caused by the virulent bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae. The British bacteriologist, Frederick Griffith attempting to find a vaccine for pneumonia, worked with two strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae, one virulent causing pneumonia in mice, and the other avirulent to them. He found that neither the virulent strain denatured by heating nor the live avirulent strain injected into mice caused the disease, whereas a mixture of the denatured virulent strain and the live avirulent strain was deadly to mice just as the virulent one. He concluded that some chemical compound present in the virulent strain – a transforming principle – has changed the avirulent strain to the virulent strain.
In 1944, Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod and Maclyn McCarty working at the Rockefeller University, United States, continued the work of Frederick Griffith to identify the transferring principle and found that it is not protein as widely believed, but deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Their result pointed to the conclusion that DNA is the carrier of genetic information.
A book by a physicist that triggered a transformation in biology
The insights of brilliant brains engaged in fundamental inquiry have opened the way for major scientific discoveries and technological innovations. In 1944, the Austrian theoretical physicist Erwin Schrodinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, published a book titled “What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell “. The American biologist Maurice Wilkins said he was so inspired by Schrodinger’s book and after reading it, he decided to switch from ornithology to genetics. While physicist Maurice was influenced to take up biology. Francis Crick was a physicist working on magnetic mines for the British Admiralty during the war. After reading “What is life” he thought a physicist could find treasures in biology and joined the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge to pursue a Ph.D.
Structure of the DNA molecule
When DNA was shown to be the molecular entity that encodes genetic information, chemists rushed to determine its structure.
The pattern formed when X-rays passing through a material cast an image on a screen, provides information about its molecular structure. In 1938, the English physicist William Astbury examined DNA using x-rays and concluded that the molecule has a helical structure. Having heard a group in the United Kingdom was attempting to unearth the structure of DNA, the American theoretical chemist, Linus Pauling, adopted Astbury’s data and proposed a model for the structure of DNA, publishing the results in the journal “Nature” in January 1953.
There was an obscure but remarkably talented person, Rosalind Franklin, pursuing x-ray diffraction studies on DNA at King’s College London. After a painstaking effort, she obtained accurate x-ray diffraction images of DNA. Her colleague, Maurice Wilkins, working in the same laboratory, passed the images to Francis Crick and James Watson at Cavendish Laboratory.
Crick and Watson were more insightful and theoretical in their approach to elucidating the structure of DNA. They, inspired by Erwin Schrodinger’s hypothesis, that the entity accounting for heredity should be an aperiodic molecular entity in cells, arrived at the double helix model, showing that Linus Pauling’s model was erroneous. The Crick – Watson model explained how DNA stores information and replicates during cell division. Their assertions were subsequently confirmed rigorously by experimentation. Crick, Watson and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1962.
The work following the Crick – Watson model, firmly established that the DNA is a polymer string constituted of two strands made of a sugar- phosphate backbone, connected to each other by linkage nucleotide bases A, T, G, C. The base A links base T and G to C. When one strand is defined by the arrangement of bases, the complementary strand is defined. The arrangement bases store information analogously to a four-letter alphabet. Each individual in a species has a unique sequence of arrangement base pairs. The variation within the species is generally a fraction of a percent.
The Watson-Crick model also explained how the DNA molecule replicates. The two strands unwind and separate, and two complementary strands are inserted. The detailed dynamics of the replication process are not fully understood.
‘DNA is a cookbook’
DNA functions like a multiple – volume cookbook, written in a four-letter alphabet. The volumes are kept in a rack in the kitchen. The rack is the nucleus and volumes on it are the chromosomes, and the cell is the kitchen. A paragraph giving a recipe is a gene. Enzymes act as chefs, who read recipes and give instructions to cell machinery to prepare the dishes, which are proteins. The system is so complex; a complete macroscopic analogy would be impossible.
The significance of the Crick- Watson work
Until Charles Darwin proposed the idea of evolution, biology lacked a theoretical foundation. Darwin hypothesized, when organisms reproduce, the progeny inherit parental characters, but there are variations. The variants, though similar to the parents, have some new or altered characters. If these characters, originating from mutations or cross – breeding are favorable for survival in the environment, they dominate in the population, inheriting advantageous traits. Thus, random generation – to – generation, advancements of living organisms, become possible – a way of improving the design of things in a production process without a designer. Living systems store information and progeny retrieve them, when required. A bird hatched from an egg when matured, knows how to fly.
The discovery of DNA and understanding how it stores genetic information, replicates and mutates explained Darwinian evolution. A mutation is a change in the ordering of base pairs, accidentally during replication or due to external chemical or physical causes. In sexual reproduction, the offspring gets nearly half of its DNA from each parent. Consequently, the offspring does not have DNA identical to one parent. It mixes up DNA in the species. However, mutations generate new genes, driving evolution. Sexual reproduction and mutation acting in concert introduced the diversity of life on earth we see today.
Once science becomes explanatory and predictive, it opens the way for innovations. Theories of mechanics and electromagnetism formulated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries brought forth modern engineering, transforming it from an empirical craft to a scientific technological discipline. Before the discovery of DNA structure and its function, biological innovations were largely empirical. Today we have genetic engineering – genes in organisms can be manipulated. The goal of more advanced genetic engineering, referred to as synthetic biology, aims to induce major genetic changes to organisms by incorporating several genes to alter biochemical, physiological and anatomical functions. Gene technology is rapidly transforming medicine, agriculture and biotechnology. Cures have been found for diseases formerly branded incurable.
How did DNA come into existence
Life is believed to have originated in prebiotic oceans enriched with carbon and nitrogenous substances. How did DNA originate there? Today, chemists can synthesize DNA in minutes, via selective procedures, only humans can do with their knowledge. Even in a vast ocean containing trillions of times more molecular ingredients than in a test tube, a molecule as complex as DNA is most unlikely to be created by random events during the largest possible time scales of the universe. A plausible scenario would be DNA evolving from simpler self-replicating molecules such as RNA (a single strand of DNA) precursors. Unlike RNA, DNA is highly stable and good stability is necessary for the evolution of advanced forms of life.
Epigenetics
Earlier we pointed out there are two golden sayings in our culture: “Arae gathi nare” and “Jammeta wada lokuei purudha (“Hereditary characters persist” and “Habits overtake heredity “). The first is a consequence of our genetic predisposition determined by DNA and explicit genes. However, the character of an individual is also influenced by the physical, social and cultural environment. Although completely non-genetic, our children frequently follow habits we indulge in. Again, the behavior of an individual is also influenced by the physical, social and cultural environment.
The environmental factors also trigger or silence genes. The study of this important genetic effect, which does not alter the sequence of base pairs, is referred to as epigenetics. Epigenetic effects could be deleterious or beneficial. Sometimes, chronic stress causes disease, including cancer. Research suggests engagement in creative and imaginative activities, and establishes favorable epigenetic changes in the brain. Inheritance is dictated mainly by the arrangement of base pairs in DNA. Epigenetic changes involve chemical changes in DNA without altering the sequence. These alterations are erasable but allow transmission to subsequent generations.
Conclusion: World DNA day message to lawmakers
The discovery of the structure of DNA stands as one of the most significant scientific discoveries in human history. It is a lesson to all those involved in research and education, telling how great discoveries originated. It is intense curiosity, imagination and preparation rather than mere indulgence in technologies that clear the path for discovery and innovation. A society that advocates policies conducive to discoveries, also develops new technologies that follow. If we just borrow technologies from places where they originated, hoping for quick economic returns, the effort would be a gross failure. Students, determined to be the best judging from exam performance, engage in professional disciplines and perform exceptionally. Why are we short of discoveries and innovations in those disciplines? Will our lawmakers ever realize the issue? They need to wonder why we are weak in science and poor in innovation. Right policies can even reverse adverse epigenetic attributes propagating in a society!
By Prof. Kirthi Tennakone
ktenna@yahoo.co.uk
National Institute of Fundamental Studies
Features
Death of the Sperm Whale
REVIEWED BY Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
Earlier this year, I sent her most recent book by an old friend, Kamala Wijeratne. Death of the Sperm Whale is her first book of poetry in four years, though in between she has published fiction, two books though both of them too were slim volumes. I am full of admiration for her in that she keeps going, the last of the poets whom I helped to a wider readership in the eighties, when I championed Sri Lankan writing in English, something hardly any academic was prepared to do in those conservative days.
Kamala’s subjects are those she has explored in the past, but the use of the plural indicates that her range is expansive. She dwells much on nature, but she deals also with political issues, and engages in social criticism. There are several poems about Gaza, the multiple horrors occurring there having clearly affected her deeply. She repeatedly draws attention to the slaughter of children, the infants sent by God only to be taken back. And she deals with the destruction of the life of a doctor, after his healing, a theme that has kept recurring in the ghastly world which is subject to the whims of the incredibly nasty Netanyahu.
The title poem is about a whale destroyed by ingesting plastic, a tragedy to which we all contribute, though those who ‘loll on the beach, their senses dulled by the burgers they eat’ could not care less. More immediate is the simple account of a friend whose infant had died in hospital, when they diagnosed pneumonia too late.
Contrasting with these urgent statements are Kamala’s gentle perceptions, as when she writes of her son supporting her as she walks, while she thinks back to the days she supported him; of a marigold growing in a crack in a shrine, offering obeisance with its golden flowers to the Noble One; of birds investigating her dining room and deciding not to build there, the male lingering ‘confused and irritated’ but eventually following the female through the window for ‘She was mistress after all.’
She is deeply interested in the passing of time, and its impact on our perceptions. The first poem in the book is called ‘First Poem of 2024’ when she ‘heard the weeping of the dying year’, and went on to meditate on how we have categorised the passing of time, while the universe moves on regardless.
She welcomes the return of the Avichchiya, the Indian Pitta, a bird that has figured previously in her poetry, after six months, but this time she spares a thought for his case against the peacock, which stole his plumes.
There are two personal poems, one about a former student who turned her back on her when she had achieved success, the other about being nominated for a literary award, but not getting it after the excitement of attending the Awards Ceremony. Swallowing her disappointment, she congratulates the winner, noting that she will not go into ecstasies the next time she is nominated.
Paraphrase cannot do justice to Kamala Wijeratne’s gentle touch, which has expanded its reach over the years. So,A I will end by quoting from her tribute to Punyakante Wijenaike, another of the distinguished ladies whose work I promoted, the one before the last to leave us. The tribute ends, recalling her most impressive work Giraya,
Like the nutcracker
That makes a clean cut
You cut the human psyche
To reveal its darkest depths
by Kamala Wijeratne
Features
Fertile soil basis of sound farming
On the occasion of World Earth Day, the conversation around sustainability often turns to forests, oceans, and climate. Yet, one of the most critical resources sustaining life remains largely unnoticed – soil. Beneath every thriving crop and every secure food system lies a complex, living ecosystem that quietly performs functions essential not just for agriculture, but for the health of the planet itself.
Soil is far more than a passive medium for plant growth. It is a dynamic and living system, teeming with microorganisms that drive nutrient cycling, regulate water movement, and support biodiversity at multiple levels. It acts as a natural reservoir, storing carbon and playing a crucial role in mitigating the impacts of climate change. The productivity, resilience, and long-term viability of agriculture are intrinsically tied to the health of this foundational resource.
However, decades of intensive agricultural practices have begun to take a visible toll. The increasing pressure to maximize yields has often led to excessive and imbalanced use of fertilisers, particularly nitrogen-heavy inputs. While these may provide short-term gains, their prolonged and unchecked use has resulted in significant nutrient imbalances within the soil. Essential micronutrients are depleted, soil organic carbon levels decline, and the rich microbial life that sustains soil fertility begins to diminish. The result is a gradual but steady erosion of soil health – one that ultimately reflects in reduced productivity and increased vulnerability of crops to stress.
Parallel to the challenge of soil degradation is the growing concern of water scarcity. Agriculture remains the largest consumer of freshwater resources, and inefficient irrigation practices continue to strain already depleting groundwater reserves. In an era marked by climate variability, erratic rainfall patterns, and increasing frequency of droughts, the need for efficient water management has never been more urgent.
Adopting scientifically sound and resource-efficient practices offers a clear pathway forward. Techniques such as rainwater harvesting and precision irrigation systems – like drip and sprinkler methods – enable farmers to optimize water use without compromising crop health. Complementary practices such as mulching and proper field levelling further enhance moisture retention and reduce water loss, ensuring that every drop contributes effectively to plant growth.
Equally important is the shift towards a more balanced and holistic approach to nutrient management. Soil testing must form the backbone of fertiliser application strategies, ensuring that crops receive nutrients in the right proportion and at the right time. Integrating organic sources – such as farmyard manure, compost, and green manure – helps replenish soil organic matter, improving both soil structure and its capacity to retain water and nutrients.
Sustainable soil management also extends to cultivation practices. Reduced or minimum tillage helps preserve soil structure, while crop rotation and intercropping promote biodiversity and break pest and disease cycles. The inclusion of cover crops protects the soil surface from erosion and contributes to organic matter buildup, reinforcing the soil’s natural resilience.
In recent years, there has also been growing recognition of the role played by biological and enzymatic inputs in enhancing soil health. These inputs stimulate beneficial microbial activity, improve nutrient availability, and increase nutrient use efficiency. By reducing dependence on excessive chemical fertilisers, they offer a pathway toward more sustainable and environmentally responsible farming systems. The transition to sustainable agriculture is not merely a technical shift – it is a collective responsibility.
Farmers, scientists, industry stakeholders, and policymakers must work in tandem to promote awareness and facilitate the adoption of practices that conserve soil and water resources. The long-term sustainability of agriculture depends on decisions made today, at both the field and policy level. As we mark World Earth Day, the message is clear: the future of agriculture is inseparable from the health of our soil and the stewardship of our water resources. A fertile, living soil is not just the foundation of productive farming – it is the cornerstone of ecological balance and food security. Protecting it is not an option; it is an obligation we owe to generations to come. (The Statesman)
(The writer is Chairman Emeritus, Dhanuka Agritech.)
-
News4 days agoRs 13 bn NDB fraud: Int’l forensic audit ordered
-
Business7 days agoHarnessing nature’s wisdom: Experts highlight “Resist–Align” path to resilience
-
Opinion5 days agoShutting roof top solar panels – a crime
-
News7 days agoGratiaen Trust announces longlist for the 33rd Annual Gratiaen Prize
-
News6 days agoFrom Nuwara Eliya to Dubai: Isha Holdings markets Agri products abroad
-
News2 days agoLanka faces crisis of conscience over fate of animals: Call for compassion, law reform, and ethical responsibility
-
News5 days agoChurch calls for Deputy Defence Minister’s removal, establishment of Independent Prosecutor’s Office
-
News7 days agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract

