18 Green Revolution:Implications for Agrarian Structure-I

Dr.Shoma Lahiri

Introduction

In the decade of the 1950s and the 1960s, India undertook several measures to improve the condition of its cultivating classes, who constituted a vast majority of India’s population at the time of its independence. The peasants and agricultural workers had participated in large numbers in the movements like Non Co-operation Movement (1921) and the Civil Disobedience Movements (1930-31) which ultimately led to India’s independence. They had suffered repression hoping that political freedom from the yoke of the British would lead to an improvement of their own situation in the form of freedom from the oppressive zamindari system which characterized large parts of rural India. Radical land reforms consisting of tenancy reforms, imposition of land ceilings, and abolition of intermediaries were envisaged as tools that would lead to a redistribution of land among the landless and alleviate poverty in the long run. Though the progress of land reforms was not as envisaged, there was a common consensus and recognition among the people about the interventionist role of the state which thought that ‘it had a direct responsibility towards its citizens, particularly the rural impoverished masses, who had very low bargaining power in a market of unequal exchange.’(Bandyopadhyay, 2008: 38 ).

Even before the land reforms were properly underway, India faced a serious food crisis in the early 1960s, especially in the eastern region. The roots of this food crisis could be traced back to the colonial powers which had not done much to improve the food production systems in the colonized nations during their reign. In fact the British not only tampered with the existing, community based systems of land tenure, by creating vested interests in land, they also practiced an extractive system which eventually led to the impoverishment of the land and the people who worked on it. To add to it, the population of these less developed newly independent nations like India grew at historically high rates. A series of back to back droughts in parts of India made the precarious situation even worse. By mid 1960s hunger and malnutrition became widespread in the developing countries of Asia. Countries like India increasingly became dependent on food aid from rich countries during this time.PL-480 or the Food for Peace program was one such program whereby the Indian government was provided humanitarian aid in the form of concessional grants to import wheat from United States to tide over its food crisis. Although named ‘Food for Peace’ this was also a foreign policy instrument whereby the condition was that India would adopt technology developed in the United States (with the support of Rockefeller and Ford Foundation) for its agricultural modernization. India was also expected to temper its criticism of the United States over the issue of Vietnam War.

PL-480 program garnered a lot of criticism in the country. In order to shake off the humiliating shackles of US Public Law 480, the entire efforts of the Indian state shifted towards enhancing food grain production and achieve self-sufficiency in this field during the late 1960s. The first round of land reforms had led to the abolition of intermediaries, but did not result in significant land distribution. In fact a widespread rural unrest was brewing up in different parts of the country which would have to be tackled by the State eventually. This was the context in which the Green Revolution and its program of agricultural modernization were introduced in India.Along with increasing agricultural production, the government of India drastically thought of reducing the land ceiling for redistributive land reform. Eventually it is said that these twin measures, as D. Bandyopadhyay(2008) recounts, ‘did have some effect on reducing the intensity of rural violence’.

The Green Revolution as we already knowwas a set of technological interventions to improve agricultural production. It did not merely represent the introduction of hybrid, high yielding varieties (of seeds) in Indian agriculture; it also involved ‘extensive use of farm machinery (as efficient labour saving devices), energised well irrigation (and lift irrigation), use of high fertilizer doses and pesticides’ and other institutionalized measures for translating the ideology of Green revolution into practice. In other words, ‘the Green revolution as a programme and an ideology is to be defined as the large scale application of modern science and technology to agriculture’ (Dhanagare, 1987).In the coming years, this US-sponsored technological package framed the broad ideology of rural transformation in India. In the first two decades after independence the measures of rural development in the form of community development programs, land reforms and cooperative institutions had not resulted in either alleviating rural poverty and inequality or increasing agricultural productivity substantially. Hence an increase in farm productionwas expected to be a lasting solution to the problems of rural poverty and hunger, a measure that would improve the quality of life in the rural areas.

The Green Revolution technology was adopted in selected regions of the country, namely Punjab, Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh and parts of Bengal from 1967-73. What was undertaken as part of this initiative was that scientists in order to achieve higher yields, initially for rice and wheat, developed plants which would have short and stiff straw to support the heavy weight of the grains. They would be more responsive to plant nutrients, mature quicker and grow at any time of the year thereby allowing farmers to grow more crops each year on the same land. New varieties also needed to be resistant to pests and diseases apart from retaining the desirable cooking and consumption traits. (Peter Hazell, 2003) These strains were developed in different parts of the world. For example, borrowing from rice breeding work in China, Japan and Taiwan, the International Rice Research Institute in Manila, Philippines developed semi-dwarf varieties which met most of these conditions. Similarly Norman Borlaug developed a variety in wheat, crossing Japanese semi-dwarf variety with Mexican wheat in Mexico. Although the Green Revolution in the initial years meant developments in rice and wheat subsequently, high yielding varieties were also developed in other crops like millet, maize, cassava, pulses and beans, which formed part of the staple food in the developing countries. Today a full- fledged system of agricultural research centres have developed internationally to work on the agriculture of developing countries. Within the country as well, similar efforts were seen in the development of research centres which would work in plant breeding and crop development technology.

The impact of the Green Revolution in increasing yields and in bringing about concomitant changes in rural society continued for a few decades till the mid- 1980s. As reiterated in an earlier module, the achievements of the Green Revolution were manifold. It included 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 etc.But despite the initial achievements, several constraints and disturbing trends have continued to surface, affecting the projected growth of the agricultural sector.

Some of the negative outcomes of the Green Revolution has been the creation of new regional disparities as a result of the selective spread of the new agricultural technology, an increase in the divide between the small and the big farmer, the effect of mechanization in the displacement of labour, and a skewed terms of trade between agriculture and industry. But along with the above one of the persistent and far reaching impact of the Green Revolution has been on the ecology of the regions in which it was introduced. The Green Revolution has been termed as ‘an ecological misadventure’ as it has caused deterioration of soil quality, depletion of ground water resources, poisoning from fertilizers and pesticides and a loss of genetic biodiversity.

Here, in this module, we are concerned with the specific impact of the Green Revolution technology on the agrarian structure in different parts of the country. This will be elaborated with examples being drawn from particular regions. Before we go into the transformation that the Green Revolution brought about, it would be wise to look into the agrarian structure that existed in the period before the technology was adopted.

Agrarian Structure before the Green Revolution

The adoption and the success of the Green Revolution technology in India were shaped by the historical property relations that existed in India since independence. These relations variedacross the country. To some extent they came into being even before the British began their colonial rule in India. The British did not do much to change these systems which created social classes in different states. The existence of these classes as well as the economic relationships between farmers and the government hasplayed a major role in how agricultural development has taken place in India.(Sebby, 2010) Under the zamindari system of land tenure, few owned the land. They were responsible for revenue collection on behalf of the British, and therefore had a free reign when it came to imposition and collection of taxes in the regions under their jurisdiction. Those who were unable to pay taxes had their lands taken away by the zamindar giving rise to social disparities whereby some had access to land and others did not. In the raiyatwari system the British collected the land revenue from the owner cultivators orraiyats depending upon the average annual output. As part of the mahalwari system, it was a group of cultivators who owned the village were collectively responsible for the payment of taxes.Often in the mahalwari system, because the collectivity consisted of very few or sometime even one landowner who owned the land in the entire village, it resembled the zamindari system in many ways. But tax rates were variable here too; it depended on the rent paid by various classes of tenants, on the nature of soil type,on theircaste status and their capacity to afford irrigation as well as their basic abilities to successfully cultivate their land.

The Green Revolution technology was most suitable for areas in which conditions for capitalist farming existed. It is said that those areas which were historically under the zamindari tenure received less of the Green Revolution technology as economic and political power was concentrated in the hands of a few landlords. Wealth distribution among the peasantry is important because it determines how many farmers can really make risky investments as in those of the Green Revolution. Technological advancements depend upon the incentives of farmers to participate. That is, those that cultivate their own land are more likely to make large investments in technology whereas those working on other’s lands do not have the incentive to do so. Thus distribution of wealth and success of the farmers across different states were affected by how land taxes were collected hundreds of years ago (Sebby, 2010)

Implications of the Green Revolution for the Agrarian Structure

The Green Revolution brought about complex, multi-dimensionalchanges in Indian agriculture, whose impact is being felt even now. While some of the positive and negative socio-economic, ecological impact has been touched upon in the earlier two modules, the emphasis here is predominantly upon the impact of the Green Revolution on the agrarian social structure. What will be highlighted are the ways in which Green Revolution has led to a widening of gap between small and big farmers, the increasing proletarianisation of cultivators despite increasing agricultural yields, the nutritional impact of the changing production relations on the poor, the growth of a new class of ‘gentleman farmers’interested in accumulating land for purposes of speculation rather than cultivation, and despite rise in agricultural wages and also crop yields, the costs of a degree of embourgeoisement of certain sections, have been rather too high.

Proletarianization:One of the impacts of Green Revolution that has been witnessed in the rural countryside is the process of proletarianisation. Owing to the growing capitalist penetration in the countryside, the process of de-peasantisation has been accelerated and consequently large number of small farmers and poor peasants has been pushed into the ranks of the landless labourers. This proletarianisation process has been found to be more striking in the green revolution areas. In view of this process of proletarianization,the improvement that the green revolution is expected to bring into the conditions of the wage labourers appears to be a distant mirage. At least the position of the rural poor particularly the agricultural labour as a class is not likely to be altered substantially vis-à-vis the rich farmers who virtually monopolise economic resources and control credit institutions in the countryside.

By raising the productivity of land, the green revolution did make it possible for farmers to grow two to three crops on a piece of land and thus enable rural workers to gain employment throughout the year as a whole. This resulted in a rise in the demand for agricultural labour. Billings and Singh (cited in Dhanagare, 1987) estimate that the total number of man days of work of the agricultural labourer went up from a total of 50 man days to 60.1 man days with the introduction of new technology for irrigating farm lands. However when pump sets, wheat threshers, corn shellers and tractors were introduced,the average demand for labour dropped down to 25.6 man days. Though in parts of Haryana, the Green Revolution changed the paternalistic relations between the agricultural labourers and the big farmers, replacing it with more contractual relations, there were reports that in most parts of the country attached labourers were thrown out of work or were reduced to casual day labourers. Although mechanization of farm opportunities brightens the scope of employment opportunities and wages in the green revolution areas, migration of farm labourers from Bihar, eastern UP, Rajasthan has affected the conditions of bargaining for a higher wage. A review of the impact of the London based HalslemereDeclarataion Group (HDG) report, cited by Dhanagare (1987) admitted that in Punjab and Haryana the trickle-down effect of the Green Revolution was partially visible in the improved daily wages of the agricultural labourers, which is estimated to have increased by 89 per cent from 1961 to 1968. However the so-called gain was totally offset by the rise in prices which was believed to be about 93 per cent in the specified period, in spite of substantial increase in agricultural production.

The process of proletarianisation has also had an impact on the pattern of consumption among the farmers. It has also been found to be unequal, as the Bhalla-Chaddha case study (1983) revealed. About one-third of the marginal farmers (cultivating upto 2.5 acres), one-fourth of the small farmers (cultivating between 2.5 and 5 acres), a fifth of the medium level farmers (cultivating holdings between 5 and 7.5 acres) from their sample were living below the poverty line and were living on starvation diets. In a total sample of 1663 households studied, about 16.48 percent farming households were living below the poverty line. Their proportion was positively correlated to the farm size in all the three regions of Punjab. If 16 percent households of the landless labourers were added then the proportion of rural households living below poverty line jumped up to 32 percent. This was distressing considering the fact that Punjab is the most developed state in India.

Embourgeoisement: As reiterated earlier, the Green Revolution had differential impact among people of different castes and classes.While some groups, communities and classes benefitted due to their socio-economic position in society,a combination of factors along with the Green Revolution led to a process of embourgeoisement experienced by a section of lower castes and classes. In the Green Revolution areas that did well as far as the agricultural productivity was concerned, there was a demand for labour due to manifold on-farm and off farm employment. This led to a rise in agricultural wage rates which benefitted agricultural labourers to some extent.

Further, the Green Revolution was undertaken for implementation at a time when the first phase of Land Reforms was partially underway in some parts the country. As mentioned earlier, this technological initiative could only be successfully undertaken in areas where the production relations were enabling. Following the enactment of land ceiling laws, in some parts of the country, namely in Western UP, it was found that small parcels of land had been acquired by the poorer members of society through purchase, through government schemes which allocated land to the poorest and the most disadvantaged, and through a combination of these.Whether these smallest landholders were benefiting from land ownership is debatable but in a country where agriculture was the mainstay of society, access to land was considered to be important for security and survival.

In Bulandshahar for example, studied 35 years later by Barker and Jewitt (2007), it was found that the Green Revolution predictions that the rich would get richer by buying up land from the poor did not happen in Uttar Pradesh. This has largely been due to the 18 acre land ceiling established in the state since 1996.Farmers with more than 18 acres were obliged to surrender any excess land. A few farmers, in the villages studied, lost land through this scheme. Land which had been surrendered, together with all land designated as ‘spare’ in the villages was distributed to the Scheduled Castes and disadvantaged people in keeping with the Indian Constitution’s commitment to social and economic justice. As a result, the numbers of different caste groups/classes who owned land increased. Most of these beneficiaries of land distribution were from among the poorest Hindus and Muslims. In 1972, when the villages were first studied power lay in the hands of the Brahmins and Rajputs, with higher caste Hindu farmers, and in some villages, with wealthier Muslims. These powerful farmers also had the largest land holdings. Barker and Jewitt’sfieldwork revealed that over the past 30 years many of the dominant Hindus, particularly the Rajputs and Jats had sold their land after profiting from green revolution and moved to Bulandshahar or other urban areas in search of salaried employment. Because of the land ceiling, in the study villages, former Rajput and Jat land had been acquired by Muslims and by the lower and Scheduled Castes such as the Jatavs and Balmiki or Chamars who are now numerically dominant among the Hindu farmers in Sabdalpur, Chirchita and Kurwal Banaras.

Though the possession of land by itself did not significantly improve their life situation, most of them thought that the growth of Bulandshahar as a town, the prosperity brought in due to the Green Revolution, the distribution of land under the Ambedkar scheme in Mayawati’s reign have played a part in improving their quality of life. The researchers found that the SCs are apparently better off than they were; the poorest among them, the Balmiki, claim to have enough not to be hungry, though their material assets are still meagre in comparison with those of their higher caste neighbours.The landless also claimed to have benefited from the Green Revolution. The growth of Bulandshahar had stimulated the non-farm economy and had seen a rise in the demand for labour. As a consequence, employment opportunities for both men and women had increased, as had the wage rates. Despite these positive changes many of the poorest castes/classes still lived in poverty, but it was asserted that no one went to bed hungry any more.

Emergence of New Classes, Evictions and Pauperization of Tenants: The Green Revolution transformed the rural landscape irrevocably. Because of the initial successesin production in the regions in which it was introduced, land values increased considerably over time. Though it was not in the manner of a real estate possession, farmers thought of land as an asset for the future and were not averse to amassing it. Prices were being doubled within a short span of time, farm land close to the highways fetched high prices. Any owner of productive land, irrespective of its location always stood to gain if he were to sell even a part of his land. Profitability in farming was bringing about a change in the attitudes of the well- off farmers who were interested in investing in more land that tax free income could buy.

Evidence from Punjab:

Wolf Ladejinsky, a World Bank consultant on agrarian reforms toured Punjab as it was experiencing the Green Revolution. He found that land had acquired a speculative tinge because of the appearance of ‘gentleman farmers’. ‘The buyers are a mot-ley group: some connected with land through family ties, some altogether new to agriculture, A few have “unemployed” rupees acquired through undeclared earnings, and most of them look upon farming as a tax-haven which it is and as a source of earning tax-free supplementary income. In most cases, the purchases range from 10 to 20 acres. In the circumstances, land prices are of no crucial importance to them. They are looked upon as “unfair” competitors in a limited land market and there is no love lost between the would-be farmers and the genuine farmers, the latter predicting that the former will come to grief’(Ladejinsky, 1969: A75 ) Meanwhile land value continued to rise with little thought of whether productivity and prices will sustain them.

Another problem with the emergence of the new classes and a rise in land prices during that period in Punjab,was that no one wanted to lease out land to tenants anymore. Punjab according to an estimate had 583, 000 tenants in the late 60s. The traditional crop sharing arrangements was such that a tenant had to give 50% of the crop produced to the land owner as part of rent. But the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 provided for a maximum rental not exceeding one-third of the crop. This provision was also bypassed just like other provisions such as security of tenure etc. The result was a large scale eviction of tenants on the ground of resumption of land for self-cultivation. According to an estimate provided by the Punjab Government in 1964, the number of tenants who were still holding lands after the commencement of the Act is 80,250. The vast difference is largely due to out and out ejectments, ‘voluntary land transfers’ or the transfer of tenants to the status of sharecroppers or agricultural labourers. The new technology in Punjab demonstrated the profitability of farming with green revolution technology. Coupled with high land values and the absence of any effective, restrictive rent measures, the upward revision of rents were inevitable. Rents moved from 50-50 to 70-30 percent of the crop in favour of the owner, making it difficult for tenants to sustain themselves.In order to sustain productivity the package of inputs (seeds, fertilisers, water, pesticides) had to be used, but the rising costs prevented the tenants from using the inputs as prescribed. Only owner cultivators with sizeable landholdings who also lease in land are in a position to do just that. For tenants sharing the crop on a 70-30 basis was not a boon and though they thought that rising rents as a consequence of rising land values was inevitable, it was a hardship for those who could not extract from the land a return large enough to meet their living requirements over and above the rental obligations and inputs which must be largely their own. Tenants also are at a receiving end when the owners-farmers fear that they might claim occupancy rights over land.This experience together not only led to their pauperization but was probably the beginning of economic stresses and strains of the poor peasant households which assumed serious proportions, in a prosperous state like Punjab.

Source :Ladejinsky Wolf. 1969a. The Green Revolution in Punjab: A Field Trip

Conclusion:

Through a detailed analysis of the impact of the Green Revolution we can conclude that the new agricultural initiative of the government transformed the social relations between castes and classes in such a manner, which resulted in a transformation of the rural society at large. The next module will dwell upon as to how the Green Revolution and the concomitant policies of the government widened the gap between the small and large farmers,and considerably increased rural inequalities.

Bibliography

• Bandyopadhyay D. 2008. Does Land Still Matter? Economic and Political Weekly.Vol XLIII.No. 10 pp 37-42
• 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 312-339http://www.abstract.xlibx.com/a-agriculture/23147-1-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
• Hazell, Peter B.R. 2002. Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing? International Food Policy Research Institute Report. Washington DC
• Ladejinsky Wolf. 1969a.The Green Revolution in Punjab: A Field Trip Economic and Political WeeklyVol IV, No. 26 Review of Agriculture. pp A73-A82.
• 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