17 Green revolution II

Dr.Shoma Lahiri

Introduction:

As you know by now, in the decade of the 1960s in India, the Green Revolution was hailed as a successful intervention which ushered in significant changes in agriculture. It not only led to increased food security as a result of the adoption ofseveral technological strategies, butalso resulted in a considerable decline in poverty due to an increase in the agricultural production. According to an estimate, real per capitaincomes almost doubled in Asia between 1970 and 1995, andpoverty declined from nearly three out of every five Asians in1975 to less than one in three by 1995. In India, thepercentage of the rural population living below the poverty linefluctuated between 50 and 65 percent before the mid-1960sbut then declined steadily to about one-third of the ruralpopulation by 1993 (Hazell 2003).

As said in an earlier module, among other achievements of the Green Revolution were an increase in the employment opportunities of the rural poor in the non-farm sectors, a moderate and selective rise in agricultural wages, modernization of agriculture, benefits accruing to farmers on account of the introduction of new technology, an increase in agricultural surplus and opportunities of investment, better nutritional opportunities offered due to a rise in income and a reduction in food prices leading to a more diversified diet and so on.

But this euphoria was shortlived. A revolution of this magnitude was bound to lead to different kinds of problems. Over time they became more visible. In spite of the initial ‘spectacular achievements’, various constraints and disturbing trends have continued to hamper the requisite growth of the agricultural sector.But ironically, despite the foreboding trends, in official and policy circles, the Green Revolution continues to be hailed as the panacea for the problems of food insecurity, so much so that a second Green Revolution is in the process of being ushered in in our country.

Negative Impacts of the Green Revolution:

So far you have only heard of thepositive achievements of the Green Revolution. But as students of society and culture, you may be aware that most of the phenomena have anticipated and unanticipated consequences. They have positive pay-offs as well as negative consequences. Some of the negative consequences could be unintended. In this module, we will talk about negative impact of the Green Revolution. These negative effects became evident gradually and havebeen of an enduring and an irreversible nature especially in relation to the ecology and social structure in India. Since the 1960s, the Green Revolution has been hailed as a successful intervention in India and China in redeeming the hunger of millions of people. But VandanaShiva, in the picture below,(1993) tells us that the Green Revolution has had a devastating impact on our ecology which is, in turn, going to affect our sustainability in the long run.

Ecological Impact:

The Green Revolution has been widely criticized forcausing environmental damage. Some of the predominant forms of damage have been the deterioration of soil quality, depletion of ground water resources, poisoning from fertilizers and pesticides and a loss of genetic biodiversity.

Like all commercialized agriculture, the Green Revolution has reduced the natural fertility of the soil. The high yielding varieties usually grow faster and as a result two or three crops could be grown in some regions. But this was often at the cost of the fertility of the land. The traditional practices of keeping the land fallow for a season or for planting other crops to retain the nutrients in the soil are done away in order to fulfill the goal of higher productivity.

For example, Vandana Shiva (1993) in providing a critique of the Green Revolution says that in Punjab, there was considerable crop diversity. About 41 % of land was under minor crops like jowar, bajra and pulses. But this gradually declined under Green Revolution. The planting of rice and wheat over and over again along with a heavy dosage of fertilizers narrowed the genetic base of crops creating serious ecological problems in Punjab. Further, the doing away of soil building crops like pulses, soyabeanetc robbed the soil of its natural fertility. The re-engineering of the dwarf variety of the so called ‘miracle seeds’ has reduced the availability of organic matter into the soil and the increased use of fertilisers for the new seeds has built up soil toxicity causing a reduction in the micro nutrients. The traditional varieties of rice yielded a lot of straw whereas the high yielding varieties increases the grain at the cost of the straw affecting the availability of fodder and nutrients for the cattle. In other words, this science based agricultural strategy led to gradual decay of the organic system that had been in place for centuries, affecting the ecological balance of the region in the long run.

The excessive useof fertilizers and pesticides during Green Revolution polluted waterways, poisonedagricultural workers, and killed beneficial insects and otherwildlife. Intensive irrigation practices led to the eventualabandonment of some of the best farming lands. Groundwaterlevels are retreating in areas where more water is beingpumped for irrigation than can be replenished by the rains.Some of these outcomes wereinevitable due to the use of modern inputsfor the first time. Further, inadequate extension andtraining, added tothe nature of input pricing and subsidy policies that made modern inputs toocheap also encouraged excessive use creating long term negativeenvironmental impacts.

The Indian farm scientists had been recommending the use of miracle seeds for farmers on the basis of national level demonstrations in farmer’s plots often ignoring the micro-heterogeneity characterizing agriculture. Sophisticated technology often calls for spot specific details but according to N.S Jodha (1974) it is often the lack of means and mechanisms which stand in the way of scientific farming. The environment specific character of HYV seeds have been long ignored. Studies show, as Jodha reiterates, that unless long term safeguards are introduced, a rush for new technology in areas dominated by HYV seeds, may actually accentuate the resource depletion process and the Green Revolution may prove to be ‘an ecological misadventure’.A series of problems result. Apart from a reduction in the world’s genetic diversity of crops, brought on due to a concentration of a few selected variety of crops, the narrow genetic base of HYV makes the crops susceptible to disease and crop failure. Genetic erosion of cereals poses a long term problem as the basic stock is gradually denuded and subsequently lost. To add to it, an imbalanced use of fertilizers has caused toxicity and a decline in the production. In fact prolonged and increasing use of chemicals has interfered with the biological and cultural control measures against pests and diseases. Thus in addition to the micro level institutional factors, the HYV seeds themselves have been responsible for creating poverty (due to its environment specific character) in certain regions as compared to others. (Jodha, 1974).

In fact Vandana Shiva (1993) tries to argue that there are hidden social and ecological costs which underlie the ethnic and political conflicts that characterize Punjab today. The Green Revolution has left the once prosperous state ravaged by violence and ecological scarcity. The problem in Punjab she says should not be understood merely as a conflict between two religious communities but ‘reflect cultural and social background and tensions between a disillusioned farming community and a centralizing state which controls agricultural farming, policy, finance, credit, inputs and prices of agricultural commodities.’ (p. 12). This attempt to introduce new technology can be regarded as ‘a planned destruction of diversity of nature and culture to create a uniformity demanded by centralized management systems.’ (p.12)

Socio-Economic Impact:

New agricultural strategy and increasing regional disparities:As a result of the new technologies in agriculture, Dutt and Sundharam(2007) say that the farmer became more market oriented. This meant an increasing dependence of the farmer on the market for both inputs like fertilisers, pesticides and new HYV seeds as well as for the selling of the outputs. The demand for agricultural credit also increased simultaneously, as the cash requirements of the farmer increased.Modern technology proved its superiority over traditional technology but this was primarily in areas where enabling conditions prevailed. Regions like Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh which were well endowed with resources benefitted the most from new technology whereas other regions remained backward and underdeveloped. Thus Green Revolution led to an increase inregional disparities.

A sharp fluctuation in outputs of cereals since the introduction of the new strategies show that though on the one hand the maximum and minimum total outputs are now much higher than the past, the output of cereals are still subject to the vagaries of the weather. Another consequence of the Green Revolution’s spread only in irrigated and high potential rainfed areas was that poverty in other areas, where the potential of rainfall was low has rarely improved as compared to the areas which were rainfed. Although villagers living in the areas with lower rainfall tried to acquire some indirect benefits through migration, cheaper food etc, these were rarely sufficient to prevent a widening of income gaps between them and those who lived in the areas which received higher rainfall. Studies also mention a worsening of regional inequalities in China as well.

Increasing the divide between the small and the big farmer: The new agricultural strategy entailed heavy investments beyond the capacity of the small and medium farmers. According to an estimate, only 6% of the big farmers among the total number, who held about 40% of the total land under cultivation could make heavy investments in the new technology. Hence these big farmers benefitted the most partly by mechanizing, and partly by multiple cropping wherein they included profitable, commercial crops. A large majority of rural households who did not own land or finances and therefore did not have credit worthiness did not go in for the new technology. Thus in a way the adoption or non-adoption of technology managed to reinforce the difference between the big farmers (who owned more than 20 acres of land) and the small farmers, tenant cultivators who were numerous and yet marginalto agriculture. In addition, small farmers were also affected by lower product prices, higher input prices as a result of the Green Revolution and efforts by landlords to increase rents or force tenants off the land. According to Hazell (2002), some critics also argued that the Green Revolution encouraged unnecessary mechanization, thereby pushing down rural wages and employment. Although a number of village and household studies conducted soon after the release of Green Revolution technologies lent some support to early critics, more recent evidence shows mixed outcomes. Small farmers did lag behind large farmers in adopting Green Revolution technologies, yet many of them eventually did adopt them. Many of these small-farm adopters benefitedfrom increased production, greater employment opportunities, and higher wages in the agricultural and nonfarm sectors. In some cases they proportionately gained in terms of resulting in a net improvement in the distribution of village income.

But it is largely the wealthy, large landholders who benefitted. These commercial farmers were able to exercise an influence on the government, which in turn relied on them for political backing and support. There was a distinct bias which was evident in the fact that ‘subsidies and investments were concentrated in areas that had already seen success and advancement, there was usually not much left for agrarian communities that needed state support’ (Sebby, 2010, Fujita 2010).In the 1980s, even as the gains of the Green Revolution were consolidated subsidies for agricultural inputs continued to increase, so much so that these agricultural subsidies have become an enormous burden for state governments. Fujita (2010) also reiterates that since these subsidies are mostly given to the wealthy farmers in agriculturally developed areas, ‘necessary public investment for agriculture and for rural areas is neglected, which causes the disparity between advanced rural areas and backward rural areas to remain fixed’(p.11).

In other words, the Green Revolution was responsible for further deepening the capitalist farmingmethods in agriculture. The process of commodification had begun during the colonial times leading to a semi-feudal, semi-capitalist form of agrarian structure, but no development of Indian agriculture or changes in production relations had been initiated, even after independence.The Green Revolution was carried out on such a base and hence its benefits remained skewed.

Bypassing Institutional Reforms in Indian Agriculture:The new agricultural strategy did not recognize the need for institutional reforms in agriculture. The bulk of the peasants were without any ownership rights. Besides, there was no fixity of tenure and large scale evictions also followed as landowners increased the rent of the land and the cultivators could not pay it. Thus tenants were forced to accept the position of the sharecroppers. In a study cited by Dutt and Sundharam (2007) on the effects of crop sharing arrangements in fertilizer use it was found that the cost of the fertilizers was met generally by the cultivators by borrowing and interest charges were rather high. Therefore owner farmers reaped the maximum amount of profit, a relatively lesser amount was reaped by the tenants and the return was even further reduced at the level of the sharecroppers. The Green Revolution and the hope generated by increasing productivity quite easily bypassed the need for land reforms. Therefore the benefits of technological changes could not be equally accessed by all, instead it contributed to a widening of disparities in income between different regions, between small and large farms, and between landowners on the one hand and landless labourers and tenants on the other.

Mechanization and Displacement of Labour: There are very few studies which assess the impact of mechanization as a result of the Green Revolution leading to the displacement of labour. The Green Revolution introduced both biological innovations- those which lead to changes in the productivity of land and mechanical innovations, which refer to the use of labour saving technologies. It is the net effect of both of the above which will determine the extent of displacement of labour. However mechanization leads to a dampening of the demand for labour and hence some scholars feel that ‘the policies that encourage premature mechanization in surplus labour economies such as India’s do not seem conducive to solving the problem of growing employment’ (Dutt and Sundharam 2007: 490). In an attempt to quantify labour displacement effects in the wheat growing areas of Punjab as an effect of modernization, Martin H. Billings and Arjun Singh showed that 55% of the total labour displaced was expected to be caused by tractors and pumpsets and 37% by threshers and reapers. This would increase as technological changes gathered momentum(Dutt and Sundharam, 2007).

Another impact of farm mechanization was highlighted by Dhanagare (1987) who mentions that the effect of farm modernization was quite damaging because of the number of accidents that the farm workers met with during the course of using such technology. A majority of such accidents occurred when farm labourers worked on wheat threshers.Dhanagare provides several such estimates and accounts in his work but mentions Punjab as a special case because in the 12,000 villages of the state there were about nearly 2 lakh farm machines of different types mainly wheat threshers and combined harvesters. According to an estimate given by him, in one year alone, (i.e in 1985), nearly 1000 farm workers in Punjab, Haryana and Western UP lost their limbs in thresher accidents. Most of the victims were invariably migrant labour. By 1985, more than 10,000 farm labourers from Bihar, Orissa and UP had been maimed while working on such machines. The attitude of the government towards the treatment and rehabilitation of such workers was one of pure ambivalence. The implementation of Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923 whereby the farm labourers were to be insured while using these machines or as regards the receipt of compensation from the government left a lot to be desired.

Skewed Terms of Trade : Agriculture versus Industry: One of the important forms of debate that characterized the Indian intellectual, social and the planning circles during the years of the Green Revolution and even after was whether the State ought to pay more attention to agriculture or the industry in a newly independent nation. In the context of a policy framework infused with Nehruvianthinking, while large sections of India lived in the villages and their needs had to be catered to, the future of India lay in rapid industrialization. In an attempt to ‘catch up’ with the rest of the world, as India invested in heavy industrialization, there was a relative neglect of its rural economy especially since its Second Five Year Plans. But as two consecutive droughts attacked India in the 1960s, and agriculture recorded a negative growth, India faced a food problem. Since the share of agriculture in the economy was quite substantial it affected both economic development as well as the stability of the political regime. It had to import large quantities of food, mainly wheat from outside, for over two years. It also had to import chemical fertilisers and agricultural machineries necessary for the development of agriculture. This was a bitter cost that India had to pay for neglecting its rural sector. Though the Green Revolution in the subsequent years made India self- sufficient in matters pertaining to food, it brought home a lesson. According to Fujita (2010), the most important lesson we learnt is that agricultural growth should precedemodern economic growth based on industrialization.In the early stages of economic development, the agricultural sector is quite huge. At this stage if the government promotes industrialization, at the cost of agricultural sector it is sure to fail because there is a lack of market for non-agricultural sectors. The existence of a domestic market is essential for industrialization. Therefore the key is to raise income and alleviate poverty which is widespread in rural areas. Hence attention to agricultural development should be prior to industrial growth and development.

Towards a Second Green Revolution in India?

Today India is in the throes of a peculiar crisis as far as its agrarian sector is concerned. While the impact of the Green Revolution is still being felt in the form of increasing agrarian distressleading to impoverishment and farmer suicides (Vasavi, 1999) in different parts of the country,there is an almost simultaneous effort to create a consensus for a second green revolution in our country. Both the groups offer rather strong and compelling arguments to support their respective positions.

Vasavi (1999, 2009) has shown how the Green Revolution model of agriculture has affected the social, economic and ecological aspects of a region, creating a crisis of identity, knowledge, resources among the farming community which is affecting their equanimity and survival.Matters have been made worse due to the neo-liberal policies of development as farmers have now come to depend on large agri-business for their seeds and loans, and even knowledge and advice of what is to be grown on their fields (rather than on their own stock of knowledge accumulated through experience of working on their land and soil). This has reduced the farmers to a state of an ‘advanced marginality’ leading them to take their own lives.In fact, Indian villages in Punjab are for sale (Sharma 2006) asrural indebtedness mounts and the people migrate to the urban centerslooking for menial jobs. According to an estimate of the National Sample Survey Organisation about 40% of the farmers have expressed the desire to quit farming.This is also perhaps the aim of the national and some of the state governments in our country who encourage industry driven agriculture at the cost of subsistence agriculture. For example, Andhra Pradesh’s Vision 2020 document speaks of reducing the number of farmers in the state to 40% of the population, but is relatively silent about ways of rehabilitating the 30% of the farming population that would be driven off the land (Sharma 2014).

The argument on the other side,that is, those who favour the ushering of a second Green Revolution argue for it in the name of an increasing population which would eventually lead to an impending food security crisis. They feel that some of the problems of the first Green Revolution of the 1960s could be rectified without much yield loss through policy reforms and improved technologies and management practices, such as pest-resistant varieties, biological pest control, precision farming, and crop diversification.The Government of India has signed the 1000 crore New Agricultural Knowledge Initiative with the United States of America which would enable a transfer of genetic engineering technology, investment in the field of agricultural research and training, and irrigation methods. In other words, this marks a reiteration of the faith in the capability of technology to provide a resolution to the limits posed by nature, or even by human intervention. Thus, the main thrust of the second Green Revolution will be to increase food production by using genetically modified crops.A transition from primary agriculture to secondary is seen as necessary to tackle poverty, endemic hunger and chronic malnutrition by enhancing agricultural production. This time the Revolution seeks to target the small and the marginal farmers, about 93% of the total agriculturists, who were left behind in the first attempt.

There are no easy solutions to the problems posed by the demands for a higher agricultural productivity or to the government’s role in reposing its faith in technology once again, to redeem the condition of the masses. But probably we cannot forget the two major costs that we incur in the bargain, the first is the limit posed by nature and her capacity to sustain life on earth, and the second concerns the so-called beneficiaries of such initiatives. In other words, who benefits and at whose costin this process of social engineering? This should give us a realistic understanding of all the interventions that we undertake in the name of human development.

In Brief:

Through these two modules we have introduced to the historical context of green revolution. We have also alerted you to the increasing nexus between market and agricultural production in the wake of green revolution. While taking you through a brief survey of the positive and negative consequences of Green Revolution, we have tried to impress upon you its sociological significance. In the next two modules, we will see how the Green Revolution in India became the anchor-sheet for some of the wider debates concerning the mode of production in Indian agriculture. We will see how a range of theoretical, conceptual and political issues concerning free and un-free labour, embourgeoisement and proletarianisation, the Bharat versus India debate, new farmers movements came to be associated with the Green Revolution.