Dharti ka Lal loosely translates as the darling son of the soil, a epitaph often used fondly for Lal Bahadur Shastri, the 2nd Prime Minister of India. Shastri, who lead the nation for less than 2 years was in every way the son of the soil: as the martial son leading the country to victory in the 1965 Indo-Pak war and as the custodian son propelling the country towards self sufficiency in food generation through Green & White revolutions.
Shastri's style of governance is very well highlighted from the Kaira incident, when, he along with the CM of Gujarat Balwantrai Mehta, stayed at the home of Ramanbhai Punjabhai Patel, a small farmer from a village in Kaira for a night before the planned inauguration of the India's first modern cattle feed plant AMUL had just build in Kaira. It is said that the entire night, Shashtri moved around freely in the village of Ajarpura talking to farmers who were members of one of the first village cooperatives under AMUL, asking them questions about the yield of their buffalos, income earned, incentive structures for production etc. The leader of Indian democracy whose diminutive figure belied his gigantic thoughts and vision welcomed himself to the homes of farmers, Harijjans, Muslims quizzing them till 2 AM in the night about their way of life. I am reproducing the interaction Shashtri had with Varghese Kurian, the milkman of India and the general manager of AMUL the next day where he explained his behaviour of the previous night
‘Under the Second and Third Five Year Plans, we have built so many dairies. All of them owned and run by the government. All of them unmitigated disasters, running at a loss. But I heard Amul dairy and its products are liked throughout the country. It is available throughout the country and has an extremely high growth rate every year. I want to know why this particular dairy is a success when all the others have failed. That is why I decided that I would stay here and find out. And that is why I spent a night with the villagers, trying to fathom the reasons for the success of Anand’s Amul dairy. But I am sorry to say, Kurien, that I have failed.
‘I looked at the soil. Good soil, but not as good as the Indo-Gangetic plains. I asked about the climate here. Cold in winter, very hot in summer, I was told. So it is in most of India. Nothing special. I enquired about the rainfall. Thirty inches of rain for three months of the year during the monsoon – much like the rest of the country. I had expected to see the entire landscape green, with cattle grazing contentedly, but the whole place is brown, just like the rest of India. I did not find any abundant availability of fodder and feed here. I looked at your buffaloes and don’t mind my saying this, Kurien, but they are not as good as the buffaloes in my home state of Uttar Pradesh. Those buffaloes are certainly better and even give more milk. Lastly, I looked at your farmers. They’re good people – farmers are always good people – but they are not as hardworking as the farmers of Punjab. I can’t find a single reason why Anand is such a great success. Now, can you please tell me what is the secret of its success?’
Believe it or not, the PM was trying to understand the business model of AMUL and what makes it a success? He had come ready with a hypothesis which he tried to prove with data he collected on ground. In modern management lexicon, he did what a CEO does while trying to figure out how his competitor is making money when his enterprise is failing. A welcome change in the world of politicians with zero accountability.
Kurian answered the PM explaining the reason for AMUL's success is the corporative spirit of the organisation and the fact that it is run by a professional manager who is an employee of the farmers and his commitment to the enterprise was as strong as the trust he enjoyed from his employers: the farmers.
The Prime Minister, who had been listening avidly, looked excited and said, ‘Kurien, this means that we can have many Anands. There are no special reasons to have an Anand only in Gujarat.’
‘So then, Kurien,’ he continued, ‘from tomorrow you shall make it your business to work not just for Anand, not just for Gujarat , but for the whole of India. The Government of India will give you a blank cheque, it will create any body, any structure you want, provided you will head it. Please replicate Anand throughout India. Make that your mission and whatever you need for it, the government will provide.’
The characteristic style of a leader is to find the right person for the right job and to make quick decisions without wasting time. He knew clearly from the way AMUL was managed that Kurien is frugal with investment and enjoys the trust of the farmers. In other words, whatever he learned the night before and during his conversation with Kurien, he put in action immediately resulting in the creation of National Dairy Development Board which then helped establishing corporative diary units across the country like Mother Dairy, Milma (Kerala), Nandini (Karnataka), Aavin (TN) etc and propelling India as the largest milk producer in the world soon (we have lost this title to US again few years ago and stand 2nd today). The series of events which Shastri and Kurien set in action on that day is known to us as the White Revolution.
Shastri's tenure as the Prime Minister was strenuous from the word go: from the insurrection in Kashmir and NE to the Naga problem to the South India's rebellion against imposition of Hindi and of course the biggest of all- the 1965 Indo-Pak war. Strangely, it was the attack of Pakistan army on that 1st Sept that really established Shastri as the "tall" leader of the nation. Unlike Nehru during the Chinese fiasco, he quickly decided to bring in IAF to support the infantry thus defeating the Pakistan army's attempt to isolate J&K from Punjab. He also decisively went by the army's recommendation to cross the border and attack Lahore thus forcing the Kashmir front forces of Pakistan army to rush back. Shastri, a Gandhian and a firm believer of peace and compromise rose to be the unlikely war hero who united the country with his slogan 'Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan'. When Pakistani army sang 'Has ke liya hai Pakistan, ladh ke lenge Hindustan' (We achieved Pakistan laughing, we will take Hindustan fighting), Shastri praised his country men: the brave soldiers fighting at the front and the humble kisan toiling the field to produce food for the nation. His call united the nation from Kashmir to Kerala and the Muslim brothers of Kashmir which Ayub Khan (Pakistan's dictator) and his forces had planned to free from India suddenly fought Pakistan side by side the Indian military.
Being a Congressman, Gandhian and Nehruvian, Shastri tried to continue with most of the socialist, democratic and secular principles established by his predecessor. However, he had a very practical and hands-on streak in his style which differentiated him from the occasionally fabian style of Nehru. Moving away from Nehru's India which was taught to admire hydroelectric dams and blast furnaces, Shastri increased budget allocation towards agriculture. Increasing food production and making the nation self sufficient in food supply was one of the primary objectives of his administration. He appointed C Subramaniam, one of the most able ministries from Nehru cabinet as the Agriculture minister (ironically Subramaniam was the Steel Minister under Nehru clearly showing the change in priority). Subramaniam with his 2 aides: B Sivaraman and M S Swaminathan put in action a series of reforms like introduction of mechanisation in farming, use of high yielding seeds etc cumulatively leading to large scale increase in grain production, the exercise which is famous today as the Green revolution.
When Shastri was elected the leader of Congress party and the Prime Minister, party President Kamaraj had said that the undisputed rule of a great man would now be replaced by collective leadership. However, Shastri had other plans; he had a mind of his own and everything he did as the PM was clearly his way and never the Syndicate's collective decisions. If there was anything collective in his times; it was his leadership which got the entire country into a collective under him. This could be clearly seen from the millions who thronged to see him in his final journey after the unfortunate death in Tashkent; a crowd, some say, which even rivalled the numbers who came to see his predecessor off 20 months ago.
