The Green Revolution of the 1960's and Its Impact on Small Farmers

University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student

Theses

Environmental Studies Program

Spring 2010

The Green Revolution of the 1960's and Its Impact on Small The Green Revolution of the 1960's and Its Impact on Small

Farmers in India Farmers in India

Kathryn Sebby

University of Nebraska at Lincoln

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses

Part of the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Behavioral Economics Commons, Botany

Commons, Growth and Development Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons,

Other Economics Commons, Other Environmental Sciences Commons, Other Food Science Commons,

Other Plant Sciences Commons, and the Plant Breeding and Genetics Commons

Disclaimer: The following thesis was produced in the Environmental Studies Program as a

student senior capstone project.

Sebby, Kathryn, "The Green Revolution of the 1960's and Its Impact on Small Farmers in India" (2010).

Environmental Studies Undergraduate Student Theses

. 10.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/envstudtheses/10

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies Program at

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Environmental Studies

Undergraduate Student Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -

Lincoln.

THE GREEN REVOLUTION OF THE 1960’S AND ITS IMPACT ON SMALL FARMERS IN

INDIA

By Kathryn Sebby

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of

The Environmental Studies Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements

For the Degree of Bachelor of Arts and Sciences

Major: Environmental Studies

With the Emphasis of: Anthropology

Under the Supervision of Raymond Hames

Dan Osborne, Reader

Lincoln, Nebraska

January, 2010

THE GREEN REVOLUTION OF THE 1960’S AND ITS IMPACT ON SMALL FARMERS IN

INDIA

Kathryn Sebby,

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010

Adviser: Raymond Hames

The Green Revolution was initiated in the 1960’s to address the issue of malnutrition in

the developing world. The technology of the Green Revolution involved bio-engineered seeds

that worked in conjunction with chemical fertilizers and heavy irrigation to increase crop yields.

The technology was readily adopted in many stated in India and for some was a great success.

However, there were many farmers who could not afford the inputs necessary to participate in

the Green Revolution and gaps between social classes widened as wealthy farmers got wealthier

and poor farmers lagged behind. This paper discusses how small farmers were affected by the

Green Revolution and why the success was not evenly distributed.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Origins of the Green Revolution 2

Farming Methods Introduced by the Green Revolution 3

Historical Property Relations in India 4

State Support of Agrarian Activity 6

Change From Traditional to Unsustainable Farming Practices 8

Uneven Geographical Distribution of Green Revolution Technology 10

Loss of Small Farms to Large Commercial Farms 11

Violence and Dissolution of Community Ties 17

Prevalence of Suicide 18

Conclusion 21

References 25

Introduction

The Green Revolution was initiated in India in the 1960’s to increase food production and

feed the millions of malnourished people throughout the nation. It has been credited with

increasing yields in many of the places where the technology has been adopted, but the benefits

experienced have been unequal across regions and groups. The goal of this literature review is to

look at the Green Revolution to determine how it may or may not have benefitted small farmers

in terms of increased productivity and income. Emphasis has been placed

on India, one of the

recipients of Green Revolution technologies. Being the second most populous country in the

world, it is important to understand how farmers are affected since they are responsible for

feeding the exceedingly large and growing population of a developing nation.

There are many people in India who life in extreme poverty and suffer from malnutrition,

and understanding how to increase agricultural productivity and yields in a way that benefits all

farmers is very important. The decades since the dawn of the Green Revolution in India have

revealed large disparities in the overall benefits to farmers.

Distribution and practical application of Green Revolution strategies has been uneven

geographically as well as across socio-economic classes. Historical property relations across

states have affected present landholdings as has the role of the government in different states to

support agrarian activity. Geographical distribution issues can be broken down further into

ecological barriers, or the viability of the land to accept Green Revolution technology.

Uneven distribution among small and large farmers is apparent in three ways: small

farmers’ lack of funds to take advantage of Green Revolution technology; insufficient

information and resources available to small farmers to effectively apply the technology; and the

absence of government support for small farmers. The uneven distribution of Green Revolution

technology has led to increased social disparity among classes. A disproportionate amount of

people achieved success with the modern technology that was developed to positively affect

everyone.

There are four important effects of the spatial and social disparities caused by the Green

Revolution in India. These are: the change from traditional sustainable methods to

monocropping and unsustainable practices; violence and a dissolution of the sense of community

among farmers; the loss of many small farmers’ landholdings to large commercial farmers; and

increased suicide rates of small farmers.

Origins of the Green Revolution

In April of 1969, then president of the Rockefeller Foundation, George Harrar called a

meeting to address the problem of world hunger. In attendance were 16 leaders from the world’s

major foreign assistance agencies that were also concerned with agricultural development. One

of those in attendance was Lowell S. Hardin, author of “Meetings that Changed the World:

Bellagio 1969: The Green Revolution” (Hardin 2008).

The Rockefeller Foundation had already been working with partners in developing

countries to develop technology to increase food production. They held the meeting in Bellagio,

Italy to emphasize the importance of scientific advancements in farming techniques as opposed

to food shipments to poor countries by aid organizations. They presented the positive impacts

achieved by the major international agricultural research centers. One of these achievements was

the introduction of new varieties of seeds developed by plant scientist Norman Borlaug that were

“stocky, disease-resistant, fast-growing and highly-responsive to fertilizer” (Hardin 2008: 471).

The 1969 Bellagio conference was the impetus for the world’s agricultural-development

organizations’ mobilization of plans for an increase in food production, later termed the “Green

Revolution”. The Green Revolution quickly spread through the developing world, including the

states of India. (Hardin 2008).

There were worries at the meeting about the potential for unintended consequences.

These included the possibility of widening the gap between small farmers and large landowners,

as well as issues of depleting soil and water resources (Hardin 2008).

This paper investigates these concerns and the effects on small farmers in India by the

technologies put forth by the Green Revolution. To accomplish these goals this literature review

was conducted by analysis of scholarly journal articles as well as books, websites and magazine

articles pertaining to the issue.

Farming Methods Introduced by the Green Revolution

The Green Revolution technology employed the use of new high-yielding varieties of

seeds as well as chemical fertilizers. The problem with indigenous seeds was not the fact that

they were not high-yielding, rather it was their inability to stand up to heavy applications of

chemicals. The new varieties were created in conjunction with the fertilizers to work together

with heavy irrigation to produce higher yields. Independently, the seeds as well as the fertilizers

were fairly ineffective, but used together they were promised to double or even triple crop yields

(Newman 1997).

To employ the methods, Punjab was chosen as the initiation site in India. Although it is

relatively dry, there had been extensive development of irrigation canals during the colonial

period. Additionally, Punjab was home to many large wealthy farmers who would become the

first to receive the Green Revolution packages (Newman 1997).

Historical Property Relations in India

Adoption and success of Green Revolution technology in India was affected largely by

the historical property relations that had been in place centuries before. These relations varied

across the country and were put in place before the British began their colonial rule in India. The

British did little to change these systems which created social classes in different states that

continue to exist today. The existence of these classes as well as the economic relationships

between farmers and the government play a major role in how agricultural development has

taken place.

The British began their two hundred year rule in India in the mid 1700s. The main source

of government revenue was land tax, and the systems of collecting that tax varied across the

country. There were three types of land tenure systems: Zamindari or landlordism, Raiyatwari,

and Mahalwari (Banerjee 2005). These systems developed before the era of British colonialism,

but the British government did little to change them, so tax collection varied across states (Das

1999). Even after Indian independence in 1948, these systems have still had a significant impact

on the villages.

In areas with Zamindari tax collection, the liability for the revenue collection of the

village was vested in one landlord. This person, the Zamindar, had free reign and was able to set

the terms for all of his peasants. He was also able to expel any peasants who did not pay their

taxes. The Zamindar held all of the property rights because of his ability to buy and sell the

rights to collecting revenue (Banerjee 2005). Under this system, most of the land was owned by

a small number of people. Land had become a commodity that could be bought and sold, and if

an individual could not pay their taxes, their land was taken away. This set the stage for social

disparity as those who could not afford land were stripped of their ownership rights (Das 1999).

This type of system was prevalent mainly in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, modern-day Madhya

Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Padresh (Banerjee 2005).

With the Raiyatwari system, taxes were collected directly from the cultivator, or raiyat.

This meant that the cultivator actually owned the rights to their land. The taxes were not fixed as

they were with the Zamindari system, instead they were calculated based on average annual

output. Taxes then varied from place to place depending on soil types and were adjusted in

response to changes in the productivity of the land (Banerjee 2005).

The third type of tax collection system was called Mahalwari. This was typical in the

northwest states of India as well as Punjab. With this system the village was jointly owned by a

group of cultivators who as a group were responsible for the collection taxes. This system was

very flexible and inconsistent; in some cases the groups in charge consisted of many people and

in others there was only one or a few in charge, making it similar to Zamindari tenure. The

members of the group were responsible for a fixed share of the land which was determined either

by ancestry or actual possession of the land, in these cases making the system more similar to

Raiyatwari. Tax rates were also variable and based on a number of different factors. These

usually depended on the rent paid by the various classes of tenants as well as the rates that were

considered fair for the soil type. They also usually took into account the caste and capability of

the tenants to afford irrigation as well as their basic abilities to successfully cultivate their land

(Banerjee 2005).

The new technology of the Green Revolution was more readily accepted in areas where

“...pre-existing property relations were conducive to capitalist (and peasant) farming” (Das 1999:

171). Those areas that were historically under Zamindari tenure have received less of the Green

Revolution technology (Das 1999). In these villages an elite class was created because the

Zamindars had accumulated a great deal of economic and political power. After Indian

independence in 1948 land distribution in these areas was unevenly distributed among farmers.

States which were historically under a landlord system have had significantly less public

spending in health, education and agricultural technology in contrast to those that had

Raiyatwari. States that did not have a history of landlordism have seen on average 23% higher

wheat yields and infant mortality rates have been shown to be 40% lower than those that had the

Zamindari system (Banerjee 2005).

Distribution of wealth as well as the success of farmers in different states have been

largely affected by how land taxes were collected hundreds of years ago. These effects are

important in three main ways. Primarily, wealth distribution determines how many farmers

within the peasantry can make risky investments, as in those of the Green Revolution. Also, the

prevalence of technological advances depend on the incentives of farmers to participate. That is,

those that cultivate their own land are more likely to make large investments in technology

where those that are working someone else’s land do not have the incentive to do so. Finally, the

states that have more peasant landowners see more support for government programs that help

small farmers (Banerjee 2005).

State Support of Agrarian Activity

The constitution of independent India in 1948 granted states the power to impose land

reforms to alleviate some of the disparities across states that had been created. Success has

varied between different areas (Das 1999). The two main fronts for this task involved changing

property relations and providing investments and subsidies for agricultural development (Das

1999).

The first step to even the playing field for farmers and do away with the pre-capitalist

obstructions that hindered capitalist farming was to establish tenancy laws and abolish “feudal-

type landlordism” (Das 1999: 170). The states that passed these laws focused on tenancy reform,

placing a ceiling on land holdings and consolidating land (Banerjee 2005). However, the

enforcement of anti-landlord laws was varied in success across regions. Some tenants could not

afford to buy their land from the landlords. In most cases, tenants could only afford to buy their

land from landlords in areas with commercial farming and Green Revolution technology because

many of the farmers in these areas were successful enough to pay for their property rights (Das

1999).

State support also took the form of investments and subsidies. Where the government

had invested money in agrarian infrastructure, irrigation and other technologies were more

readily available and there was the opportunity to obtain credit with interest rates much lower

than those of money-lenders. The presence of public investment increased the profitability of

agriculture which lead landowners to make more investments that raised productivity. For

example, when the state invests in irrigation in an area, farmers are more apt to invest in the

newly developed high yielding varieties of seeds and fertilizers knowing that their chances of

high yields are increased (Das 1999).

However, these benefits were rarely seen in the more marginal areas that missed out on

the successes of the Green Revolution because commercial farmers had the money and power to

sway the government in their favor. Government officials often relied on wealthy farmers for

support and political backing. Because of this, subsidies and investments were concentrated in

areas that had already seen success and advancement, and there usually was not much left for

agrarian communities that were most in need of state support (Das 1999).

Change From Traditional to Unsustainable Farming Practices

Traditionally, Indian farms were small plots of land protected by windbreaks and tree

cover. The farmers employed sound methods of organic husbandry that had been used for

centuries. The practices of crop rotation and leaving fields fallow for long periods of time

allowed the soil to retain nutrients. Because of this, the demands on the land were low, allowing

farmers to establish a stable relationship with the environment. Maintaining a state of

equilibrium with the soil enables farms to recover after disastrous events, such as droughts or

monsoons (Das 1999).

The natural forest was “delicately balanced and well-adapted . . . to represent an

ecologically optimal model for agriculture” (Das 1999: 180). The tree cover protected the soil

from excessive heat and served as a safeguard against heavy monsoon winds. The multiple

layers of vegetation protected the soil from erosion and allowed rain to circulate through the soil

and restore aquifers, which the vegetation could tap into during long dry spells. The diverse mix

of vegetation also enriched the soil with a variety of nutrients. All of these components created a

highly productive ecosystem that had been functioning and evolving for centuries to withstand

the volatile conditions of India (Das 1999).

Up until the Green Revolution, farms in India were subsistence-based and sown with a

number of indigenous species of plants. Between each row of crops were other crops, making

efficient use of land and water (Rosset 2000).

Biophysicist A.V. Balasubramanian founded the Center for Indian Knowledge Systems

as a way to promote traditional Indian agriculture. In his research of small farming communities

he found that for each small geographical region, each caste had its own niche in natural resource

exploitation and use. Because of this, there was no overlapping and resources were not over-

exploited. This allowed small communities to be independent and self-sustaining, giving every

person a chance to participate in the region’s economy (Newman 2007).

Farmers were then influenced by the Green Revolution and larger farmers who had

changed to modern methods such as monocropping, in which they cultivated only one type of

crop rather than multiple crops, as is done in traditional agriculture. While monocropping allows

farmers to grow more of a certain crop that is usually of higher market value, it has negative

effects on the soil as well. Monocropping usually involves clearing large patches of land of

trees. Also, farmers who use a monocropping system tend to leave their fields fallow for shorter

periods of time, so the soil cannot replenish its nutrients. Different crops have different needs,

and planting more than one type gives the soil a chance to recharge what nutrients a certain crop

does not need in preparation for the next crop. The soil does not get that kind of a break with a

system of monocropping. Additionally, farmers that employ monocropping methods need higher

inputs of chemical fertilizers.

The Green Revolution package offered high yielding seeds and the promise of double or

triple yields. This involved the application of chemicals to enhance the quality of the soil as well

as deter pests and insects. The native crops were unable to stand up to chemical application, so

farmers had to purchase the seeds that were developed to withstand heavy chemical applications.

The high yielding varieties of seeds had a narrow genetic base, and the farmers were sowing all

of their fields with just one type of seed. This resulted in the displacement of thousands of

locally indigenous species as well as agricultural systems that have been build up over

generations on the basis of knowledge accumulated over centuries (Shiva 1993). Also, the trees

that once protected the fields were cleared, leaving the soil vulnerable to erosion and the plants

open to intense sunlight and violent wind.

Switching from traditional subsistence farming to industrial monocropping had negative

effects on small farmers. They found themselves trapped in the cycle of high interest rates on

seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides which they had to buy on credit. Because they were often only

working with one dealer, there was no competition and prices were able to remain very high.

Uneven Geographical Distribution of Green Revoution Technology

Thirteen North American agronomists were sent to India to assess the possibilities of

technological advancement in agricultural villages. They soon realized that it would be

impossible to assist all of India’s 550,000 villages. Because of this the Intensive Agricultural

Development Program was formed to specially select areas best suited for agricultural

development. These areas would then receive the material and financial resources of the entire

country for technological advancement (Shiva 1993).

The country of India is comprised of a multitude of different topographies, climates and

soil types, or agroecological zones. Because of this, the modern varieties of seeds developed to

increase production were not ecologically viable for all regions. The seed types developed

simply did not vary enough to be used consistently across the country (Das 1999). This provided

the Intensive Agricultural Development Program with the criteria needed to select the different

villages that would receive the technological packages developed by Green Revolution scientists

(Shiva 1993).

Modern varieties of crops such as sorghum, millet and barley, which grew in mainly

semiarid and dry land conditions were not widely developed until the 1980’s, and even then there

was limited availability of these seeds. The most successful and highly distributed crops were

rice, maize and wheat, which needed areas that had high rainfall or sufficient irrigation (Evenson

2003). Of all of these, wheat was the most successful, causing states in the Northwest to fare

particularly well because of their irrigation systems (Chakravarti 1973). Not only did this limit

opportunities for farmers in arid regions, it resulted in only a portion of land suitable for growth

to be utilized. This was due to the lack of irrigation facilities needed to sustain the crops, a

consequence of the lack of state involvement (Das 1999), which will be discussed later on.

Farmers who are able to afford irrigation systems are having problems as well. They

must use expensive pumps to tap into groundwater reserves, which are depleting rapidly. In

some areas, groundwater levels are sinking up to three feet per year (Zwerdling 2009). Today,

farms that had begun digging down ten feet now find themselves drilling down more than 200

feet, requiring even more expensive equipment (Zwerdling 2009).

Rather than cooperating with the environment by employing traditional methods of crop

rotation and the planting of diverse varieties of crops to solve the problem of uneven

geographical distribution, researchers developed strains of crops that would adapt to unsuitable

conditions so long as they were heavily irrigated and received applications of expensive inputs of

fertilizers and pesticides (Overdorf 2009), which led to disparities between farmers who could

afford these technologies and those that could not.

Loss of Small Farms to Large Commercial Farms

The Green Revolution came about as a means to present a solution to resource and food

scarcity. However, physicist and ecological activist Vandana Shiva believes that this solution

led to the “ecological breakdown in nature and the political breakdown of society [as]

consequences of a policy based on tearing apart both nature and society” (quoted in Shiva 1993:

24).

The Green Revolution’s method to increase food production and eliminate hunger is to

introduce technologies such as bio-engineered seeds and chemicals that are developed to increase

yields. However, smaller farmers have fallen behind and have had to take out loans and sell land

to afford the technology of the Green Revolution. These farmers were left impoverished, and

there were many reported suicides by farmers too proud to beg. According to agricultural

researcher Peter Rosset, there are three important lessons we can take from the Green

Revolution:

First, where farmland is bought and sold like any other commodity and society allows the

unlimited accumulation of farmland by a few, superfarms replace family farms and all of

society suffers. Second, where the main producers of food--small farmers and farm

workers--lack bargaining power relative to suppliers of farm inputs and food marketers,

producers get a shrinking share of the rewards from farming. Third, where dominant

technology destroys the very basis for future production, by degrading the soil and

generating pest and weed problems, it becomes increasingly difficult and costly to sustain

yields (Rosset 2000: 6).

Monkombu Sambasivan Swaminathan, who is considered the father of the Green

Revolution in India, agrees that it may not have been the best plan for Indian agriculture. He

attributes this to the fact that the industrialization and monoculture introduced to India by the

Green Revolution have resulted in low water tables and soil that has been depleted of nutrients

essential for growth. Additionally, these techniques sparked a vicious cycle in which farmers

were forced to spend more and more money on chemicals to counteract what monoculture and

heavy fertilizer applications have done to their land. (Laidlaw 2008).

Presently, water resources are scarce and expensive in India. Large farms benefit

because they can afford canal irrigation, whereas small farmers need to resort to taking out loans

with high interest rates to irrigate their fields. Keith Griffin wrote in 1979, “The growth in

inequality in rural areas stem in large part from the fact that small, poor peasants who have

restricted access to credit, technical knowledge and the material means of production are unable

to innovate as easily or as quickly as those who are landed, liquid and literate” (Griffin 1979:

216).

A survey in 1967 showed that in Punjab, the showcase state for the Green Revolution,

65% of Punjabi farmers owned fifteen acres of land or less, and their land only accounted for

about 34% of the total land of the state. The rest of the land was owned by the minority of

farmers who owned twenty acres or more. While a majority of farmers in Punjab farmed ten

acres or less, it was shown that only farmers that owned at least twenty acres could afford to

purchase the new inputs of the Green Revolution (Newman 1997). In short, small farmers were

just not equipped to keep up with the pace of the Green Revolution.

To obtain credit, farmers need to have a secure tenancy or own land, which makes them

more viable for investment and provides an asset on which credit can be acquired. Liquid assets

are essential for purchasing commercial inputs of seed and chemicals as well as enabling a

farmer the stability to hold out and wait for the most opportune time for sales and purchases.

Farmers who are illiterate have less access to knowledge and information regarding commercial

inputs, as well as the ability to learn about proper usage and techniques.

Small farmers also suffer the effects of heavy fertilization taking its toll on the land and

destroying the soil. New seeds are dependent on large quantities of fertilizers, which decrease

the presence of nutrients in the soil such as nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and manganese. To

counteract this, farmers must apply even more fertilizers to make up for the lack of important

nutrients and aid the growth of the plants (Zwerdling 2009). Furthermore, pesticides and

herbicides lead to resistant species, creating further need for chemical applications. Farmers are

finding it harder to stay ahead of these growing costs, but they have become dependent on the

new technological inputs.

The Green Revolution favored expensive technological investments for the “best

endowed farmers in the best endowed areas, and directed away from resource prudent options of

the small farmer in resource scarce regions” (Shiva 1993: 45). Because of scarce resources,

competition increased among farmers--further widening gaps between social classes as well as

geographical regions as discussed above.

In a system where purchasing expensive equipment is necessary for a farmer to stay

competitive, small farmers often must rely on unofficial creditors and money lenders. These

business men loan money and charge exorbitant interest rates, sometimes as much as double the

interest rate that banks charge. In the village of Chotia Khurd, Daniel Zwerdling reported that

farmers are paying interest at rates as high as 24% (Zwerdling 2009).

Traditionally, agricultural knowledge and customs in India were shared among the people

that had been passed down through social and cultural structures and practices. With the

introduction of the Green Revolution and the commercialization of agriculture, farmers were

faced with a difficult shift from traditional agricultural knowledge to a more modern

methodology. Farmers now rely more on market-led fads as they are impacted by the growing

competition among agri-businesses. Because of this, agriculturalists are constantly in

competition--causing the need to purchase new commercial varieties of seeds, pesticides, and

fertilizers.

These new agricultural methods do not necessarily come equipped with the training and

knowledge necessary to effectively implement them. Professor A. R. Vasavi drew on data from

the India’s National Sample Survey number 49 which pointed out the lack of public agencies in

rural India as well as the lack of training and education to a significant portion of people (Vasavi

2005). “Only 8.4% of agriculturists had accessed information from the Krishi Vigyan Kendras

(Farmers Science Centres); 17% received information from other agriculturists and 13% from

agricultural input dealers” (Vasavi 2009: 99).

Furthermore, the reports indicated that many farmers have encountered problems with

their farms because of their lack of knowledge of pesticide use and commercial inputs. Soil tests

must be conducted to determine the correct amount and composition of fertilizer and pesticide

mixtures. A large amount of small farms have missed out completely in this process, leaving

them ignorant of what they should be using on their fields (Chakravarti 1973). In fact, the

leading cause for increasing debts of agriculturists was the inappropriately large amount of

pesticides they sprayed on their fields (Vasavi 2009). When this was not the case, farmers

would apply too little to their land to save money, causing the fertilizers to be virtually

ineffective. In other cases farmers would wait until their field was infested before buying

pesticides, which also defeats the purpose of these chemicals (Chakravarti 1973).

In the political economy of the Green Revolution, it is evident that large, wealthy farmers

in India have more influence in politics than do small farmers. Griffin made this point years ago

when analyzing the Green Revolution:

“The ends as well as the means of government policy usually are largely

determined by the government’s sources of support. In most states this support

comes from local elites and economic policy is designed to further their interests .

. . Seldom has a government attempted deliberately to mobilize the groups that

comprise the ‘wretched of the earth’, i.e. Those who lack the privileges of power

and the resources necessary for material progress” (Griffin 1979:176-77).

The wealthy landholders are often the creditors and political bosses that make important

decisions, or they have heavy influence on those that are by providing them financial support.

This makes it impossible for small farmers to share in any of the control because they lack the

amount of land ownership and caste status to change their situation--when it comes down to it,

the government is more prone to protect the interests of those whom they rely on to provide

support when it is needed.

In the 1970’s and 80’s a large number of small farms, unable to keep up with the

competition, shut down. There were 1,375,382 landholdings in Punjab in 1971, and this number

fell to 1,027,127 by 1981. This decline of nearly 25% of the farms of Punjab led to a shift

toward large farms (Shiva 1993). In 1984 24% of small farmers and 31% of marginal farmers

were living below the poverty line (Singh 1984). There was also a study done by the Johl

Committee, who gathered in 1985 under the leadership of economist S.S. Johl to assess

agricultural systems in India, that showed that while from 1977-1979 there was an increase in per

hectare income, there was a decline in financial returns from farming in Punjab. The

introduction of external inputs was only possible by the introduction of credit which led to the

indebtedness of many farmers because of rising costs of chemicals and the necessity to apply

more and more to fields as the soil continues to degrade (Shiva 1993).

In 1984 there were a lot of cases in which small landowners who still technically owned

their land had leased it out to wealthier farmers and then subsequently worked the very same

land as a laborer, enabling them to get at least some money out of the land, since they could not

afford to purchase the inputs needed for Green Revolution agriculture (Singh 1984).

The increase in profitability of agriculture caused many landlords to take a new interest in

farming, evicting tenants so that they may farm the land themselves. This made less land

available to small farmers, as large farmers and landlords were increasingly repossessing the land

for their own use. Even if they did not evict the tenant, many times landlords would charge

higher rent or crop share or rotate the tenants among the different plots of land so they were not

able to acquire any rights to their land (Singh 1984).

Violence and Dissolution of Community Ties

Vandana Shiva has focused her research on the issues in Punjab, India caused by the

Green Revolution. The violence that was occurring in the 1980’s when Shiva wrote the first

edition of her book The Violence of the Green Revolution (1993) was being contributed to

conflicts between religious groups, namely the resurgence of the Sikhs. Shiva suggested that the

conflict between religious groups in India was not solely to blame, and that focus should be

placed on the unrest that was caused by the Green Revolution and its ecological and political

demands. Farmers were left discontented and indebted as the result of degraded soil, and pest-

ridden crops. This resulted in disillusionment and tension between the farming community and a

newly centralized state taking charge of agricultural policy as well as agricultural commodities’

prices, finance and credit (Shiva 1993).

The displacement of native plants and agricultural systems that had developed over

centuries of local knowledge by modern techniques resulted in decentralized knowledge of

traditional farming techniques, causing further fissures among the farming communities.

Farming was their livelihoods and the way that they connected with each other.

Changes toward external inputs not only had negative consequences for the ecology of

the villages, they had social implications as well. Before the Green Revolution, agriculturalists

relied on mutual relationships within their villages. After the introduction of Green Revolution

technology they found themselves solely dealing with banks and agribusiness, thus weakening

relationships within villages (Shiva 1993).

The farmers of Punjab found themselves in the midst of increasing conflict that was

converging and intensifying tensions. There was class conflict, pauperization of the lower

peasantry, conflicts over water resources and mechanization displacing labor. There was also

conflict related with religious and cultural relations among different peoples. The Green

Revolution commercialized all relations and “created an ethical vacuum where nothing is sacred

and everything has a price” (Shiva 1993: 174). Tension also developed related to the center and

state sharing political and economic power (Shiva 1993).

Before the Green Revolution, farmers relied on internal inputs and organized locally.

This changed after the Green Revolution to centralized control of farming and external inputs.

Because of this, social relations began to disintegrate, there was no longer a sense of community

and violence had become rampant. In 1986, 598 people were reportedly killed due to violence

among farmers. In 1987 the number grew to 1,544 and in 1988 3,000 lives were lost to violence

in Punjab (Shiva 1993).

Increase in Suicides

Because of the building distress related to these issues of the Green Revolution, many

farmers are committing suicide by ingestion of pesticides. The number of suicides in 1966 was

37,848, making the suicide rate 7.6 percent. Five percent of these suicides were cause by

poverty or economic reasons. The suicide rate in 2000 was reported to be 10.8 percent, with

about nine percent being related to poverty, unemployment or bankruptcy/change in economic

status (National Crime Records Bureau).

In his 2009 article A.R. Vasavi focuses his studies on the states of Andhra Pradesh,

Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and Punjab. On average these states have had the highest

number annually of reported suicides. Vasavi reported that suicides in places like Maharashtra

were becoming so common that the prime minister visited the region to grant monetary packages

to the farmers. Suicide notes had been written to the government in many cases, as the act

became of a political nature; one in which the farmers were trying to make a statement about the

conditions in which they were living (Vasavi 2009).

In the reports of suicide from the five states Vasavi studied, most of the victims were

entering into Green Revolution agriculture which brought on the challenges of increased

commercial agriculture such as production, credit, marketing, knowledge and the climate of the

market. The small farmers that entered into the Green Revolution market were unable to keep up

with the economic and social pace. Most of the suicide victims, Vasavi notes, were from the

“Backward Classes” and low caste groups--which increased the problems of economic

marginality. There is also a notable number of suicide victims that were of castes that

traditionally did not practice agriculture. These caste members had to switch to agriculture

because of its presence in the local market and the displacement of rural products by industrial

products. These new cultivators had found themselves incurring large debt in their attempts to

avoid impoverishment (Vasavi 2009).

Studies have been done to analyze the sources of the distress that causes agriculturalists

to commit suicide, and several factors have been associated. These broad factors are:

“the integration of Indian agriculture into the world market, increasing costs of

production, inadequate institutional support . . . deceleration in rural growth,

decline in wages, growing indebtedness and unemployment, frequent loss of

employment, [and the] frequent loss of production . . .” (Vasavi 2009: 95).

Agriculturalists get non-institutional credit from agribusiness agencies, who give loans to

farmers as well as from new money lenders and creditors, which includes relatives and friends

working in the urban sectors. Inability to repay debts has become a subject of ridicule and

humiliation for agriculturalists, and many of those who committed suicide did so after

experiences of humiliation or ostracism (Vasavi 2009).

Vasavi writes,

“In summary, the increasing commercialisation of agriculture, the subscription to

the dominant Green Revolution model, the range of risks, and the knowledge

dissonance indicate the impact of the Green Revolution for marginal areas and for

marginalized agriculturists” (Vasavi 2009: 99). The Green Revolution brought

about an increasingly commercialized version of agriculture that was difficult for

small farmers to keep up with. Because of this, they encountered increasing

amounts of debt, insufficient means of support, and the incapacity to care for the

needs of themselves and their families. This resulted in distress and humiliation

which often pushed these farmers to suicide.

Babu and Lakshmi published a study in which they studied the correlation of chemical

pesticide use and suicide. They compared four villages in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India

before and after they stopped pesticide use through a non-pesticide management program

introduced by a local NGO. They also used four randomly selected villages similar in size and

land characteristics that did not stop using chemical pesticides as controls. The villages in the

study consisted of a majority of small farmers (Babu and Lakshmi 2009).

In 2000, Socio Economic and Cultural Upliftment in Rural Environment (SECURE), a

local NGO stepped in to re-introduce non-pesticide management (NPM) to the small village of

Punnukula. NPM involves returning to the fundamentals of diversified crops and utilizing

natural resources that were locally available to manage pests. This proved to be successful as

both yields and incomes increased while costs of production decreased by 2003. Because of this

success, NPM was implemented in 3 other villages and pesticide use was stopped completely by

2003 (Babu and Lakshmi 2009).

From 1998 to 2006 there were 17 suicides in the villages using NPM practices and 23

suicides in the villages that continued to use pesticides--but only three suicides occurred in the

former after the installment of NPM. Farmers that were interviewed from the NPM villages

unanimously agreed that the cost of cultivation has decreased while their income has increased,

erasing the debts of many (Babu and Lakshmi 2009).

Conclusion

The creators of the Green Revolution seemed to have had the best intentions at heart--

they were working to develop technologies that would increase productivity of farms in

developing countries to combat hunger and poverty. They were not completely unsuccessful,

either--the modern varieties of seeds that they produced did, in many cases, increase yields and

increase profits for farmers as well as reduce prices to feed the hungry. However, with these

gains were major setbacks.

As Norman Borlaug, the “father” of the Green Revolution, summed up in a speech given

thirty years after receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in 1970:

“. . .increased food production, while necessary, is not sufficient alone to

achieve food security. Huge stocks of grain have accumulated in India, while

tens of millions need more food but do not have the purchasing power to buy

it” (Borlaug 2000).

The lack of a stable agrarian system in India has made it difficult for Green Revolution

technology to impact everybody positively. This is because of a rigid social structure which

makes it difficult for those without money to improve their social conditions. Those with more

money (and therefore more land) can afford the seeds and chemicals necessary to compete in the

Green Revolution market. Farmers with less money cannot afford to buy the necessary

technology and resort to money-lenders to purchase on credit. They then find themselves in debt

and paying exorbitant interest rates. They buy the technology on credit to keep up with large

farmers and stay competitive in the market, but the debt alone negates any possible financial

success they can achieve by adopting Green Revolution technology.

Once a farmer does acquire the tools necessary to compete in the post-Green Revolution

market, he or she is then trapped in a cycle that is nearly impossible to break. The modern

varieties of seeds that were developed for the Green Revolution require heavy irrigation and

applications of chemicals to be successful. Once a farmer applies these chemicals to the soil, the

soil degrades and is left depleted of essential nutrients. To make up for that loss, the farmer

needs to use even more fertilizers to make up for what is lacking. Additionally, the use of

pesticides leads to the creation of pesticide-resistant pests. This vicious cycle leads to the need

for more chemicals to keep up with the changing chemistry of pests and pesticides.

Ultimately, the ideas and concepts of the Green Revolution may have seemed beneficial

for all, but when deployed it is evident that this is not the case. To be truly effective at

eliminating poverty and hunger worldwide, researchers need to develop a system that works with

the land, rather than against it. It is impossible for technology to ever completely control the

land and as humans we are not able to completely control nature. That being said, the cycle that

farmers find themselves in when they begin to utilize Green Revolution technology is not easily

broken, and the dependence has led many into indebtedness and further impoverishment.

Dr. R. H. Richharia, an agronomist and former director of India’s Central Rice Research

Institute began to study traditional methods of farming in the 1970’s. He did his research in

remote regions of Madhya Pradesh where farmers had not adopted Green Revolution

Technology. He was astonished by the high skill levels of the farmers in this region as well as

the vast knowledge the people had about the different indigenous species of rice they were

growing. Their yields were equal to if not greater than those of the high yielding varieties being

used in other parts of the states. They also had a variety of species, each regarded for different

specialties such as high yield, superior cooking quality, or taste, among other traits. After this

study, even a Green Revolution supporter like Richharia was beginning to realize that traditional

agriculture was not as inefficient as it had been made out to be (Newman 2007).

The argument for the Green Revolution was that India’s people were starving, and if they

could grow more food, the problem could be solved. Historians like Amartya Sen point out

however, that famine in India was not for the absence of food, but rather the inability of people

to acquire food. During the later half of the nineteenth century, several severe famines struck

India. The colonial government initiated the Famine Commission in 1880 to investigate the

problem and find a solution to change conditions. Surprisingly, the commission found that

every province was actually experiencing a surplus of food. The problem was not with under-

production at all; the people were just unable to afford the food that was being produced around

them. These surpluses mean that India was in fact capable of feeding itself before industrial

agriculture was introduced (Newman 2007).

David Hopper, economist for the Rockefeller Foundation who was a primary backer for

the Green Revolution stated in the Foundation’s “Strategy for Conquest of Hunger” that:

“national governments must clearly separate the goal of growth from the goal of

social development and political participation…These goals are not necessarily

incompatible, but their joint pursuit in unitary action programs is incompatible

with development of an effective strategy for abundance. . .” (quoted in Pearse

1980: 79).

In 2001, India had an epidemic of deaths due to starvation in more than a dozen states.

This was the first time this had happened since the 1960’s. In that same year, India had such a

surplus of grains the government proposed dumping a significant portion of it into the sea to

make room for the next year’s harvest (Newman 2007). It is clear that the time has come for a

plan for social development rather than a strategy for abundance. The Green Revolution may

have been successful in increasing yields in many areas, but conditions have not improved for

many of the farmers that need help the most.

Works Cited

Babu, R. Satheesh and Lakshmi Vijayakumar. “Does ‘No Pesticide’ Reduce Suicides?”

International Journal of Social Psychiatry, Sep 2009, Vol. 55 Issue 5, p401-406

Banerjee, Abhijit and Lakshmi Iyer. “History, Institutions, and Economic Performance: The

Legacy of Colonial Land Tenure Systems in India.” The American Economic Review

95.4 (2005): 1190-1213.

Borlaug, Norman: “The Green Revolution Revisited and the Road Ahead.” Lecture to

Norwegian Nobel Institute: Oslo, 2000.

Chakravarti, A.K. “Green Revolution in India.” Annals of American Geographers 63.3 (1973):

319-330

Das, Raju J. "Geographical Unevenness of India's Green Revolution." Journal of Contemporary

Asia 29.2 (1999): 167-86. Web. 5 Oct 2009.

Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin. "Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000."

Science 300.5620 (2003): 758-62. Web. 14 Aug 2009.

Gillis, Alex. "Sowing Seeds of Revolt." Maclean's 02 April 2007: 53. Web. 28 Aug. 2009.

Gopal, Singh. Socio-Economic Basis of the Punjab Crisis, Vol. XIX, No.1 1 Jan 1984. P.42.

Hardin, Lowell S. "Meetings That Changed the World: Bellagio 1969: The Green Revolution."

Nature 25 Sep 2008: 470-471. Web. 5 Aug 2009.

Laidlaw, Stuart. "Green Revolution Gets a Rethink." Toronto Star 5 Jul. 2008: ID05. Web. 5 Sep

2009.

Mishra, S. (2006): “Suicide Mortality Rates across States of India, 1975-2001: A

Statistical Note.” Economic and Political Weekly, 41.16 (2006): 1566-1569.

National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB): Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India,

National Crime Records Bureau organization, various annual publications 1967-

2000.

Newman, Bryan. "A Bitter Harvest: Farmer Suicide and the Unforeseen Social, Environmental

and Economic Impacts of the Green Revolution in Punjab, India ." Development Report

No. 15. Jan 2007. Food First: Institute for Food and Development Policy, Web.

Overdorf, Jason. "The Green Devolution: India's Population Is Growing Faster Than Farm

Output, Threatening One of its Most Prized Achievements." Newsweek 28 Aug. 2006

Web. 28 Aug. 2009.

Pearse, Andrew. Seeds of Plenty, Seeds of Want. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Print.

Rosset, Peter. "Lessons From the Green Revolution." Food First: Institute for Food and

Development Policy. 08 Apr 2000. Institute for Food and Development Policy. 14 Oct

2009 <http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html

Shiva, Vandana. The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and

Politics. 2nd ed. London, UK: Zed Books Ltd., 1993. Print.

Vasavi, A.R.. "Suicides and the Making of India's Agrarian Distress." South African Review of

Sociology 40.12009 94-108. Web. 27 Aug 2009.

Walsh, Bryan. "Norman Bourlag." Time 28 Sep 2008: 22. Web. 30 Sep 2009.

Zwerdling, Daniel. (14, April 2009). 'Green Revolution' Trapping India's Farmers in Debt.”

Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731&ps=rs