19 Green Revolution:Implication for the Agrarian structure -II

Dr.Shoma Lahiri

Introduction:

In the Module 4.2 a, we presented a detailed understanding of the Green Revolution as a concerted state initiative which was carried out in India during the latter half of the decade of 1960s. We also examined its overall impact,both positive and negative,in social, economic and ecological arenas. It goes without saying that the Green Revolution brought about far-reaching changes in agriculture as well as in agrarian social structure.

In this module, we are concerned specifically with the effect of Green Revolution on agrarian social structure in India. The earlier module dealt with aspects like proletarianization of small and marginal farmers, the embourgeoisement of certain sections of the rich and big farmers, the general pauperization of landless labourers and tenants in certain regions, the consolidation of conflicting class interests in the countryside, the rise of ‘gentleman farmers’ in some regions and the attendant eviction of small and marginal farmers from agriculture. This moduleparticularly looks at the widening gap between the small and the large farmers,and its implications for rural social structure. Evidence shows that though the Green Revolution helped tide over a famine like situation in the country, it also created new kinds of rural inequalities. Some of these inequalities can be seen as inextricably linked to the contemporary socioeconomic configuration of Indian agriculture. Some of the issues of our times such as declining capacities of agriculture, food insecurity, and farmer suicides can very well be understood against the backdrop of the Green Revolution.

Widening Gap between small and large farmers:

The Green Revolution gave rise to several myths which were busted in the long run as evidence from different regions would corroborate. The Green Revolution was considered to be ideologically suitable for big farmers because it was capital intensive and machinery-driven. It was expected that the big farmers would be able to afford the total package of necessary inputs such as modern agricultural implements like tractors, tillers, irrigation pump-sets, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides. Alongside there was also an understanding that overall yield rates as well as agricultural productivity per acre was positively correlated to farm size. This idea was proved wrong by a survey undertaken by Bhalla and Chaddha (1983) across 180 villages in Punjab. The survey in Punjab found that small and marginal farmers did not lack initiative or interest. Though competition with the big farmers was an uphill task, they were ready to take the risk. They were willing to try out all possible measures to improve their farm inputs. Small and marginal farmers in Punjab adjusted their cropping patterns in response to the opportunities available to them. Bhalla and Chaddha (1983) found that all crops were grown in farms of all sizes. The only difference was in the percentage of cropped area under individual crops. Despite their dependence on traditional capital inputs, small farms supplemented their own stock of productive assets by hiring machine services, the cost of which was much higher on small and marginal farms than on large farms. As far as productivity is concerned,Bhalla and Chaddha’s survey also shows that the agricultural income per acre in the case of smallest of farms was Rs. 754.50 per acre, while it was Rs 740.40 per acre for the largest ones. Thus in matters of farm size, agricultural productivity, adoption of green revolution technology, investments in agriculture etc the marginal and small farmers stand close to the medium and the large ones, mainly on the strength of their equally strong irrigation base. The researchers also agree that this situation might be a peculiar feature of Punjab agriculture and may not have its counterpart in most areas outside Punjab. The only difference between these two categories of farmers was regarding paddy cultivation where the small farmers tried to counterbalance their relative disadvantage of lower overall yields by achieving higher cropping intensity and more intensive employment of their family labour (Bhalla and Chaddha, 1982)

The Green Revolution technology was considered to be scale neutral in character. This meant that irrespective of the size of the farm the technological intervention of the Green Revolution (whether it is HYV seeds, lift irrigation, mechanization of irrigation or farm subsidies) would benefit the small famers and the big landowners alike. But the implementation of Green Revolution was a lot influenced by the bureaucracy and the officials who were responsible for disseminating information about the techniques of cultivation and possible gains from the introduction of new technology. It was found that the agricultural development bureaucracy at the local level had a different perception. Dhanagare mentions that ‘their understanding rarely conformed to the notion of scale neutrality and their actions almost always reflected a tacit pro-rich policy of rural development.’ Joan Mencher(1978),for example, found that most of the agricultural officers whom she had interviewed in Tamil Nadu thought that small farmers (those who had less than 5 acres of irrigated land) could be ignored in the course of the Green Revolution. This was because they had small uneconomic holdings and hardly made a substantial contribution to production. The big landowners, on the other hand, could be taken along as they were well off, had big farms, and thus could be expected to contribute to agricultural production in a big way. However,Mencher found that the small farmers were as innovative and were equally keen to adopt new methods of farming which would lead to increased yields. But they often lacked resources that would enable them to experiment with new methods. Nor did they have the support of the agricultural bureaucracy.

Another instance where the unfavorableattitude of the bureaucracy towards small farmers was made evident, when an analysis of electricity connections was made which indicated that the needs of the rich farmers were catered to systematically by the Punjab State Electricity Board (Dhanagare, 1987). It is documented that during the time of the Green Revolution the State Electricity Board would charge 10,000 rupees per connection given on a priority basis for agricultural purposes. This came down to 7000 rupees which was said to be equivalent to the average annual income which could be generated by farmers whose average land size was about 1.74 hectares. It was also the bare minimum maintenance requirement for a family of 6 sustaining themselves on that land. This practice is said to have stopped eventually but clearly indicates that such a policy could have benefitted the big farmer. The small and marginal farmers are at a disadvantage because very few can afford to incur expenditure on electricity connection and diesel, a fact which was corroborated by the study undertaken by Bhalla and others(1983). Thus, the Green Revolution technology may have been scale neutral but it was far from being resource neutral.

Small farmers also experience disadvantage when they are tied to networks of dependence with the big farmers of the region. As the Bulandshahr study(cited later) by Barker and Jewitt (2007) would show, that as tenant cultivators, they are dependent on the big farmers for access to water and fertilizers for their crop. It was invariably the small and marginal farmers who were the poorest in the region, as they had no access to irrigation facilities and were hence dependent upon the farmers who had tube wells or bore wells in their land. Similarly access to proper fertilizers was also dependent on what these big farmers ‘gave’ them. As the quality of fertilizers and access to water was compromised, the agricultural productivity in their lands also suffered.

One of the important reasons which made the Green Revolution successful in Western UP and parts of Haryana was the presence and active mobilizationby the BharatiyaKisan Union (BKU). According to Barker and Jewitt (2007), the governmentinvestment in agricultural development, was to a large extent, driven by the growing strength of the rural lobby. When the government tried to reduce subsidies on agricultural inputs like fertilizer and fuel, there were loud protests in the 1970s and 1980s from the new farmers’ movements in the region.The dominant members of rural society who were members of the BKU ensured that the benefits of the new agricultural technology were directed towards serving their own interests. In fact it is said that the strength of the farming lobby played a significant part in determining who the beneficiaries of the Green Revolution technology were.

Evidence from Bulandshahar, Western UP: A Case Study

A survey of the impact of green revolution technology in certain villages of Bulandshahar district in Western Uttar Pradesh 35 years after the technology was introduced in the area, yielded very interesting results. The primary reason attributed to an increase in the quality of life in the villages studied was the adoption of Green Revolution technology, especially high yielding seeds particularly wheat adopted in the 1960s which had helped tide over the threat of famine. Subsequently the adoption of new technology in the region also ensured wealth and prosperity. Both men and women of the area were certain that most of the improvements were directly or indirectly linked to the Green Revolution technology. For example, their perception was that improvements in rural electrification was introduced keeping the irrigation of HYV’s in mind. Similarly they also believed that education had become affordable due to the profits derived from cultivating HYVs. People in the area were worried that the livelihood security that had been brought by Green Revolution would be lost if the population growth was not checked, as crop production had reached a plateau.

The researchers found that people’s outlook had undergone a change since 1972, when the first round of field work had been undertaken, the rigidity of caste and gender hierarchies had also declined a little, evident in the participation of people of different castes in the survey. Though the researchers recognize that all material improvements cannot be linked to the adoption of the green revolution technology, they also found that the area had developed as the process of rural electrification was complete, a sustained program of research and development in crop technology had been initiated by the State, irrigation, fertilisers, seeds, farm machinery, insecticides and pesticides were easily available, there was the presence of an efficient marketing structure, animal breeding centers had also developed alongside plant breeding mechanisms etc. These were in some way or the other linked to the Green Revolution.

Patterns of land ownership changed significantly over the last 30 years. Earlier in the villages studied, power laid in the hands of the higher caste Hindu farmers, Brahmins and Rajputs, in some villages, and wealthy Muslims. These powerful farmers also had the largest land holdings.

Fieldwork revealed that over the past 30 years, many of the dominant Hindus, particularly the Rajputs and Jats had sold their land after profiting from the green revolution and moved to urban areas. Their land had not been absorbed by the farmers who were left behind due to land ceiling laws. Instead their land had been acquired by Muslims and by the other lower castes such as the Jatavs and Balmiki or Chamars who are now numerically dominant among the Hindu farmers in the area. The fieldwork suggests the absence of increased concentration of land in the hands of the richest. This was a significant change.

Although after 2000, the number of landholders in the villages studied had increased, the most influential members were still the wealthy Muslims and the few remaining Brahmin, Rajput and Jat families. In fact, concern amongst wealthy villagers seemed to be rooted primarily in resentment over the recent redistribution of small land parcels from rich to poorhouseholds under government schemes like the Ambedkar program initiated by the Mayawati government. Though it was not quite clear whether access to land had improved their social condition. An increase in the population of the poorer Hindus and Muslims necessitated that survival of these poor people irrespective of whether they were Hindus or Muslims now depended on supplementing subsistence production with earnings from oﬀ-farm and non-farm employment by as many family members as possible.

The land reform program of the government had distributed some excess land in the region to the lower castes and the poor. But the landowning castes had ways of holding land beyond the ceiling limit. While the large farmers primarily grew a combination of wheat and sugarcane, the small farmers predominantly grew wheat and rice which were used for consumption. Cash income for small farmers was largely obtained from selling their labour rather than their crops.

Benefits accruing to large farmers were more than that accruing to small farmers.

From the use of two key inputs of water and inorganic fertiliser, it is evident that small farmers are at a disadvantage in the production of HYVs compared with their larger counterparts. Though the availability of irrigation water might have increased, the benefits are not evenly spread. Irrigation water is more expensive for the poor than for the rich. Tube well water is more expensive than canal water in spite of the subsidy on electricity. This is a major burden for smaller farmers, especially where their land is distant from canals and where they have no option but to depend on tube well water for irrigation of their HVYs. The government does oﬀer some help with the cost of tube well installation but if the initial subsidised tube well does not function properly for any reason, the farmers are given no further help. Farmers havingno access to canal water, or not owning pump sets, had to depend on tube wells owned by other farmers. Such farmers were invariably the smallest, poorest ones. They generally went for less than optimal quantities of irrigation water for their crops given the costs involved. Thus, they harvested lower yields than those who had access to their own pump sets and tube wells, or to canal water.

Similarly as far as the use of fertilizer is concerned, small farmers (with less than three acres of land) and many with less than one acre, mostly obtained fertiliser from their richer neighbours, usually in exchange for work. Good quality of fertilizer was thus not guaranteed and these small farmers had little choice but to accept whatever fertiliser was ‘given’ to them by larger farmers. Most used only one type of fertiliser, NNP, regardless of whether or not it was appropriate for their soil. This almost certainly contributed to the relatively low yields they harvested in comparison with the larger farmers. These were the same farmers who were unable to apply suﬃcient irrigation water to their crops. Resolving the stagnation in crop yields in the face of a rapidly growing population thus represents a major challenge to farmers in the doab and in much of India in the future. There is scope for planting green manures and also for applying animal dung to the fields but during the dry months virtually all dung produced in the villages is mixed with chaﬀ by women, made into dung cakes, dried, and used as fuel. This constitutes an important source of income for women and hence they are a little reluctant to use it in their own fields which might lead to higher crop yields and sustainability of agriculture.

Most small farmers were also unable to aﬀord seed of good quality and depended on larger farmers for their supplies. This they often paid for the supplies they received with their labour. They had little control over the quality of seed they received, or the price they paid for it. Furthermore, rarely were these the newest and most high yielding varieties. Usually, small farmers were not perceived as credit worthy by banks, so they had to pay high levels of interest to richer neighbours in the village in order to borrow money. Again, the means of repaying debts was through their labour, which frequently left them short of time on their own fields. For these and many other reasons, the gap between large and small farmers had widened over the past 30 years. , though the researchers were frequently reminded, no one in the villages went hungry any more.

According to an estimate provided by the researchers, small farmers, (those with holdings of less than three acres) owned some 40 per cent of village wealth in 1972 but they hold only about 20 per cent now. The landless were still the poorest as a group but while they owned virtually nothing in 1972, they now possess, allegedly, 10–15 per cent of the wealth of the village. Further, the growth of Bulandshahar had stimulated the non-farm economy and had seen demand for labour rise. As a consequence, employment opportunities for both men and women had increased, as had the wage rates. Benefits accruing from the Green Revolution have been experienced by only a small proportion of a growing number of landless people. Most continue their existence in poverty, the material assets of the Balmikis were meagre in comparison with their high caste neighbours, though it was repeatedly claimed by them that no one went to bed hungry.Source:http://www.abstract.xlibx.com/a-agriculture/23147-3-evaluating-years-green-revolution-technology-villages-bulandshah.php.

Rich farmers are considered to be more credit worthy than the small and marginal farmers. In a micro level longitudinal study of two villages from Mandya district in Karnataka, conducted at two different points of time in 1955 and 1970, Scarlett Epstein found that as irrigation facilities were extended to two different villages, the holdings per acre of the upper castes (Lingayat) steadily increased, whereas the percentage of land belonging to the lower, untouchable, scheduled castes (Adi Karnataka) decreased. Wetlands also attracted investors from outside who were interested in investing their capital in land. Epstein also found that the rural credit societies in the region were monopolized by the rich farmers who ‘controlled co-operative institutions not for symbolic gains of ‘status’ but to serve their vested interests.’ The rich farmers could easily get loans from co-operative societies at an official rate which was half the rate of what private moneylenders charged. Hence they were in a much better position to buy large quantities of fertilizer on credit and thereby ensure good harvest than the poorer farmers.

The Green Revolution technological breakthrough was made possible in a few crops, -wheat, rice, maize and so on. The narrow genetic base of the HYVs not only gradually reduced world food diversity, it also made the crops vulnerable to pests and diseases. Imbalanced and improper use has not only affected agricultural yields but it has also created problems of toxicity. The growth of acreage under HYV is often at the cost of other food crops particularly pulses in India. Another tendency mentioned by N.S Jodha (1974) concerns increasing rural inequalities which were bound to affect mass nutrition in the long run. Changes in production relations, that is, weakening of the employer-employee ties, substitution of cash for kind as far as wages are concerned, as by-products of green revolution adversely affect food grain consumption of some categories of the poor. With commerce getting precedence over nutrition, the gap between production and mass consumption may further widen. The important policy implication is that the distribution of the productivity gains of the HYVs,is as important as the growth of yields because the problem of nutrition is not of production but of distribution.

Bhalla-Chaddha’s study (1982) found that the Green Revolution had indeed brought prosperity to the peasantry in Punjab. Due to the creation and availability of an irrigation base, all categories of cultivators who had adopted the Green Revolution technology were able to improve their productivity and income substantially. But the gains of the new technology were found to be distributed more or less in proportion to the initial landholding position. Since the landholdings are distributed in a skewed manner the distribution of gains have been quite inequitable. In the plains of central Punjab it has been seen that the small and marginal farmers are unable to produce as much per capita because of their land base. They have to engage themselves in a number of non-farm activities in order to obtain a higher per capita earning. Unfortunately, in spite of putting in very hard labour in both farm and non-farm related activities, quite a few amongst them are not able to save themselves from the clutches of poverty. It has been a disquieting realization that even in the heartland of green revolution, about one-third of the marginal farmers (cultivating upto 2.5 acres) and about one-fourth of the small farmers (cultivating from 2.5 to 5 acres) and a fifth of medium level farmers (cultivating upto 7.5 acres) live below the poverty line.

Conclusion:

Thus the Green Revolution as a poverty alleviating measure has not been quite successful. In fact according to Dhanagare, ‘all available statistics reflect greater immiserization and pauperization as the green revolution technology package spread in different parts of the country. ’ In the period between 1960-61 and 1967 -68, according to an estimate, the proportion of rural people living below the poverty line has increased massively. In the heartland of the Green Revolution, the proportion of the rural poor has quadrupled. Another study sponsored by the ILO which drew its sample from 4 different states namely Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and UP revealed that the distribution of income had become worse and real incomes of the rural poor had declined. In the rich farmlands of Punjab, where the real income had grown by almost 26% (fastest in India), the proportion of the poor living below the poverty line grew from 18% in 1960 to 23% in 1970s. This was true for Tamil Nadu as well, where the percentage of population living below the basic minimum also grew from 36.04% in 1961-62 to 48% in 1969-70. As the ILO study revealed, the social origins of the rural poor was that they primarily consisted of the agricultural labourers, the landless or the near landless families (Dhanagare, 1987).

The primary thrust of the Green Revolution was productivity and growth. The assumption was that growth in itself would be sufficient as it would percolate down to the poor and solve the problems of rural poverty in India. But this did not really happen in the way it was imagined. Where there has been a political will and a commitment to distributive justice, agricultural growth has made a little difference, as in the case study of Bulandshaharmentioned above. But largely in rural areas, we witness a consolidation of class interests as a result of the Green Revolution. It has made the class of kulaks a political force to reckon with. Growth and poverty alleviation need not necessarily be treated as separate goals. In fact, the experience of the Green Revolution tells us that rural inequalities can be reduced only when concerns of growth, distribution and social justice are factored together in the programs of development.

you can view video on Green Revolution:Implication for the Agrarian structure -II

Bibliography:

BhallaG.S and G.K Chaddha.1982. Green Revolution and the Small Peasant: A Study of Income Distribution in Punjab Agriculture –I Economic and Political Weekly Vol 17, No. 20pp 826-833.
Bhalla G.S and G.K Chaddha.1982b. Green Revolution and the Small Peasant: A Study of Income Distribution in Punjab Agriculture –IIEconomic and Political Weekly Vol 17, No 21pp871-877.
Barker Kathleen and Sara Jewitt. 2007. Evaluating 35 years of Green Revolution Technology in villages of Bulandshahr District, Western UP, North India. Journal of Development Studies Volume 43. No2. pp 312-339 http://www.abstract.xlibx.com/a-agriculture/23147-3-evaluating-years-green-revolution-technology-villages-bulandshah.php
Dhanagare D.N. 1987. Green Revolution and Social Inequalities in Rural India Economic and Political WeeklyVol XXII. Nos 19, 20, 21. AN137-AN144
Jodha N.S. 1974. HYV: Missing Dimensions (Review). Economic and Political Weekly.Vol No.pp 949-950.
Sebby Katherine. 2010. The Green Revolution and Its Impact on Small Farmers in India.Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses.Paper 10.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses/10

Web links:

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section7group1/home
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/07/07/the-toxic-consequences-of-the-green-revolution?page=2