Don't break what works: Rethink the recent proposal to fragment ICAR

ICAR is one of the few institutions that retain land-grant-style integration of research, education, and extension across disciplines. To dismantle that is to dismantle our strength

The government’s proposal to create a separate Council for Fisheries and Veterinary Research, championed by the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (MoFAHD), has stirred sharp debate. The new body would carve out fisheries and veterinary research from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) — the apex institution that has shaped India’s agricultural progress for nearly a century.

 

Supporters argue the move is timely. With livestock and fisheries now accounting for over 40 per cent of agricultural gross value added (GVA), a dedicated research council is seen as a way to boost sectoral visibility, attract tailored funding, and improve responsiveness. Some even point to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the distinct medical and dental councils as precedents for creating separate bodies.

 

Budgetary evidence: New institutions don’t mean more money

 

The creation of MoFAHD in 2019 was a welcome administrative step to give focused policy attention to livestock and fisheries. But in fiscal terms, the restructuring has not translated into higher prioritisation. Before the bifurcation — when animal husbandry and fisheries functioned as a combined department within the Ministry of Agriculture — their combined budget during Quinquennium Ending (QE) 2018–19 was 8.1 per cent of the Department of Agriculture’s allocation. After becoming separate departments under a new ministry, this figure has dropped to 3.4 per cent (QE 2024–25).

 

ICAR’s own budget trends further undermine the case of neglect. Between 2017–18 and 2023–24, animal and fisheries research consistently received 16.5 per cent to 21.6 per cent of ICAR’s research expenditure — a fairly robust share relative to their contribution to agricultural gross domestic product (GDP). These sectors are not peripheral — they are institutionally embedded across ICAR’s divisions, national research centres, and specialised institutions. The core issue is not allocation, but the need for sharper coordination, stronger leadership, and better programme design.

 

Why the ICMR analogy doesn’t hold

 

The ICMR isn’t a model of sectoral division — it’s one of internal integration. Under a single institutional framework, it brings together diverse research domains like infectious diseases, public health, nutrition, genomics, data science, and more. It has no separate councils for, say, virology or public health. Its strength lies in coordinating various specialisations without splintering the system. ICAR functions similarly — integrating crops, livestock, and fisheries under one research umbrella. Creating separate councils would not replicate the ICMR model — it would contradict it.

 

Likewise, the analogy with medical and dental councils is misplaced. These are regulatory bodies for distinct professions, not research ecosystems. India already has an independent Veterinary Council of India (VCI) that performs a similar regulatory role for veterinary education and practice. But regulation is distinct from research. Unlike medicine and dentistry, veterinary and fisheries sciences are integrally linked with agriculture — not just academically but also in how livelihoods and natural resources intersect.

 

Lessons from the bifurcation of state agricultural universities

 

India’s experience with fragmenting state agricultural universities (SAUs) offers a clear caution. Over the years, several states have split multi-faculty SAUs into separate universities for veterinary, fisheries, and horticulture sciences — aiming to give each sector more focused attention. But the outcomes have often been mixed: Faculty stretched thin, infrastructure duplicated, and interdisciplinary learning diluted. Reputed professional bodies — the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) and the Trust for Advancement of Agricultural Sciences (TAAS) — have flagged these trends as counterproductive, urging consolidation and integrated approaches instead.

 

Such fragmentation also runs counter to the vision laid out in the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which calls for integrated, multidisciplinary institutions and discourages narrow, compartmentalised structures. Creating a separate research council would move in the opposite direction — just when national policy emphasises collaboration across domains.

 

Global best practices favour integration

 

Globally, research institutions have not gone down the fragmentation path. The US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), Brazil’s Embrapa, and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) all operate integrated systems. These institutions provide disciplinary focus without institutional silos, ensuring that cross-cutting challenges — like sustainability, nutrition, and climate change — are addressed comprehensively.

 

India’s ICAR is one of the few institutions that still retains this land-grant style integration of research, education, and extension across disciplines. To dismantle that is to dismantle our strength.

 

Convergence, not cleaving

 

If the goal is sectoral uplift, India needs reform, not replication. Creating a parallel council risks administrative duplication without solving the real challenges. A more effective approach would be to launch sector-specific National Research Missions in areas like zoonoses, the blue economy, livestock genomics — co-led by ICAR and MoFAHD, establishing a Policy Coordination Platform between these two organisations for shared agenda-setting, biannual reviews, and collaborative innovation pipelines.

 

India’s agricultural challenges — from climate volatility and nutrition security to transboundary animal diseases — demand convergence. A new council might offer short-term administrative clarity, but at the cost of long-term systemic coherence. The task is not to fragment what needs repair, but to rebuild it from within. ICAR doesn’t need to be split — it needs to be strengthened.

 

 

Smita Sirohi, principal scientist, ICAR, is former joint secretary (G-20), DAFW and Advisor (Agriculture and Marine Products), Indian Embassy, Brussels. Views expressed are personal