A dichotomy of sustenance

Indian agriculture is in a serious crisis. During the last two decades, a large number of farmers have committed suicide. India reported a total of 2,96,438 farmers' suicides between 1995 and 2015 and, in 2019, 10,281 people associated with the farming sector have committed suicide. Though it is clear that Indian agriculture demands urgent remedial action from the government, India has failed to formulate any long-term agricultural policy involving all the major stakeholders. Complete apathy towards the demands of farmers, who have been protesting at the borders of the national capital for over two hundred days, is a case in point.

Few pointers of the crisis

Low productivity and low income: A recent study by B Dhar and R Kishore (The Economic and Political Weekly, April 17, 2021) discloses that in 1950-51, the share of agriculture in GDP was 45 per cent, and 70 per cent of the nation's workforce was dependent on this sector. After seven decades, the corresponding figures are 15 per cent and 42 per cent. These figures show that a huge labour force is still engaged in farming activities though their productivity is very low. The return of thousands of migrant labourers to their respective villages from industrial towns, during the lockdown period, flags the importance of the farming sector in the life of millions of Indians. Long neglect of this important sector has made the lives and livelihood of farmers very susceptible.

In 2019, India's ranks in terms of wheat and rice yields were 45 and 59 respectively. The following figures reveal the pathetic productivity level of rice and wheat in India. As per FAO data, in 2019, the yields of rice (in tonnes/hectare) for Australia, the USA, China, and India were, 8.8, 8.4, 7.1 and 2.7 respectively. In the case of wheat, the productivity (in tonnes/hectare) for Ireland, the UK, China, and India were 9.4, 8.9, 5.6, and 3.5 respectively. Dhar and Kishore found that the overall expenditure on agriculture research was virtually stagnant in India, against a rapidly growing trend as seen in the case of China. Further, India's agricultural research spending as a share of its value-addition in agriculture saw a declining trend, while for China, the trend was the opposite.

Limitation of green revolution technology: One of the reasons for low productivity could be the limitations of the much-hyped 'green revolution' technology in boosting productivity beyond a certain level. While productivity has declined over the years, the rise of input costs has made the farmers dependent on the government for subsidy and for other inputs like a supply of diesel, electricity, fertiliser, pesticide etc.

In addition to adverse ecological consequences of the green revolution, the noted scientist Vandana Shiva in her book 'The Violence of the Green Revolution' (1991), argued that the Punjab crisis in the 1980s was, in a large measure, a 'tragic outcome of a resource-intensive and politically and economically centralised experiment with food production. According to her, that did not create conflict between two religious communities, but reflected cultural and social breakdowns and tension between the disillusioned farming community and the centralised state that controlled agricultural policy, finance, credit, inputs and prices of agricultural commodities. 'At the heart of these conflicts and disillusionment lies the Green Revolution', she alleged.

Declining investment: The share of investment in the farm sector, to the total investment undertaken in the country, has consistently fallen over the decades. In the 1950s, its share was 18 per cent and, in the 1980s, it fell to around 11 per cent, shrinking further to 7.6 per cent during 2014-18. Every government has systematically ignored the need for investment in the farm sector. Data on the simple ratio of agriculture's share in investment and its share in GDP confirms that there has been a disproportionate fall in agricultural investment in the country since the 1980s. While this ratio has always been less than one, implying that agriculture is an investment-deficient sector, it has fallen further since the 1980s.

Who would provide the required fund to boost Indian agriculture sector? There are three options: (i) The government – which is starved of resources; (ii) corporates – their involvement through green revolution package has not been commendable (rather discouraging); (iii) the third sector (say, Agriculture Credit Society etc) — till now, its contribution to the Indian farm sector is not encouraging. Apparently, it looks like that Indian agriculture has again fallen into another 'vicious cycle of poverty'!

Overdependence on government subsidy and procurement process: The Government of India has tried to resolve all the problems related to agriculture in an ad hoc manner without proper long-term policy. Successive governments have provided firm subsidies using taxpayer's money due to various political compulsions. India's latest notification to WTO shows, in 2018, the government provided USD 56 billion towards farm subsidy. In the recent past, the largest component, around 43 per cent (USD 24.2 billion), of these subsidies were provided to 'low-income and resource-poor farmers'. According to GoI's definition, 99.43 per cent of farmers fall under this category as they have less than 10 hectares of land. The question remains then who gets the rest of the 57 per cent subsidies! Apparently, 0.57 per cent middle and big farmers of India, and a handful of the agriculture exporters corner the major share of the government subsidies.

In a significant submission to the Committee on Agriculture in 2018, the US had claimed that the levels of support provided to rice and wheat were considerably above the 10 per cent limit imposed by the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). However, study shows that in 2018–19, India's market price support to the crops, except rice, was below the 10 per cent threshold.

Widening supply–demand gap: One of the declared policies of the Green Revolution was to achieve food security. To make the green revolution package attractive, the government had offered huge subsidies to the affluent peasants who produced a marketable surplus. But, data suggest that this policy has failed to achieve its main objective.

In 1961, India produced 60.9 crore tonnes of cereals. In 2009, the production reached 192.4 crore tonnes — an increase of 3.15 times in a gap of less than 50 years. During this period, the population of India increased by 2.64 times. So, it is expected that per capita consumption of cereals should have also risen in a malnourished country. Data suggest that in 1961, per capita consumption of cereals in India had been 468.7 grams and, in 2009, the consumption declined to 444 grams. In the same period, the consumption of pulses declined to only 37 grams from 69 grams.

It may also be mentioned that between 1950-51 and 2010-11 the production of milk, egg, and fish have increased by 7.1, 34.4, and 11 times respectively. Nevertheless, in 2006, 43.5 per cent of Indian infants were underweight compared to only 4.5 per cent of babies in China (in 2005). This situation has not improved in the last decade or so. FAOSTAT data (2017-19) shows that with 14 per cent of its population undernourished, India lags behind emerging market peers, such as Bangladesh and Vietnam, in terms of the prevalence of undernourishment (when it comes to per capita nutritional intake levels). India is also home to the largest number of undernourished (over 189 million during the triennium 2017–19) making up for over 28 per cent of the world's total. Further, the Global Hunger Index (GHI) of 2020 showed that India's rank was 94 out of the 107 countries with sufficient data to calculate 2020 GHI scores. Raghunathan et al (2020) in their paper, 'Affordability of Nutritious Diets in Rural India', has also shown that almost three-fourths of Indians cannot afford nutritious diets. Why is there a dichotomy between the huge rise in food production and the deficient nutritional condition of the citizens? One simple answer is the lack of purchasing power of a large number of Indian citizens.

Recent initiatives by the Indian government and farmers

If we list a few important decisions that were taken by the government and a section of farmers during the last two years, even when the country has been reeling under the Covid pandemic, it will help us understand which direction Indian agriculture is veering towards.

• On September 27, 2020, the President of India gave assent to the controversial Farm Bills passed by Parliament. Two new acts and one major amendment to an existing act have been legislated. The Union government claims that the Acts will transform Indian agriculture and attract private investment.

• Soon after the Acts were introduced, farmers' unions began holding local protests. On 30 November, an estimated crowd of 2,00,000 and 3,00,000 farmers converged at various border points on the way to Delhi demanding repeal of the farm laws. Since then, the protest continues.

• The Genetic Engineering Approval: A Committee of the Environment Ministry has allowed the field testing of two indigenous varieties of Bt brinjal, developed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research in eight states – Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Tamil Nadu. After a decade of the moratorium on Bt brinjal, India allowed field trials to start in September 2020, marking the first step towards the commercial marketing of what will be India's second GM or genetically modified crop – after Bt cotton – and very first GM food crop. India allows the import of GM soybean and canola oil.

• In June 2019, some 1,500 farmers of Shetkari Sanghatana, a farmers' organisation, gathered to illegally plant government-banned genetically modified (GM) seeds, which they say could improve their livelihoods and help reduce pesticide use. The farmers assembled in a field in Akot, a village in Maharashtra, where they symbolically planted pest-resistant Bt brinjal (eggplant) and herbicide-tolerant cotton seeds in defiance of government regulations, according to.

• On February 8, 2021 in the Rajya Sabha, the Prime Minister referenced to an interview of an ex-Prime Minister and said – "Manmohan Singh talked about it but Modi is having to do it now. Be proud". In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in September 2004, the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said. "We need a second green revolution, making use of modern advances in biotechnology and other frontier technologies to usher in a new phase of expansion, a new frontier as it were in the agriculture possibility curve. For that, we need to revitalise India's research in the agricultural system, India's extension system and India's credit system. The more we commercialise our agriculture, the more our farmers need access to commercial inputs."

• To boost organic cultivation, a target of 20 lakh hectare additional area coverage, by 2024, is envisaged in the vision document of the government. Cultivable land area under organic farming has increased from 11.83 lakh hectares in 2014 to 29.17 lakh hectares in 2020 due to the focused efforts of the government. Over the years, the organic promotion activities led to the development of state-specific organic brands, increased domestic supply, and exports of organic produce from the north-eastern region. The Government of India provides assistance for promoting organic farming across the country through different schemes.

2nd Green Revolution and its consequences

To come out of the present mess, created mostly due to the first Green Revolution, the government is clearly preparing the ground for biotechnology-based second Green Revolution. While in the first green revolution, a symbiotic relationship between the State and the global corporation was essential for initiating the process and to make it acceptable among the farmers, the biotechnology-based second green revolution is primarily a corporate-driven initiative. States' involvement is not that essential. In addition to planning for large-scale production of GM foods for mass consumption, the government is also encouraging organic cultivation, primarily targeting the health-conscious affluent consumers – both domestic and foreign. This is likely to lead to a dual production and consumption pattern of food items in India.

It is very likely that in the near future, the organic farmers, under contractual obligation to supply export-quality products to transnational retailers for global consumers of Europe and America, will increasingly rely on high-grade fertile land for cultivation. A part of these organic foods will be sold to affluent domestic consumers through organised retail chains. And for the remaining hungry millions, low-grade grains will be cultivated, in arid and saline land, using genetically modified seeds and arsenic-contaminated groundwater. The fertile lands of this tropical region will be used by global retailers as the womb of a surrogate mother.

While the citizens of the importing countries of the North would consume 'green products', a large number of the underprivileged population of Southern countries like India would lose their basic rights to water and safe food. The transnational water utilities will take charge of the municipal water distribution services and the fertile lands will be used to produce exotic foods for the affluent consumers. The developed economies will become 'green' at the expense of the citizens of the developing economies turning 'indigo' (Nilkantha) by absorbing and increasing the amount of frankenfoods and industrial pollutants.

The other alternative

The other alternative policy before the government would be to go back to the basics. According to the first agricultural minister of India, KM Munshi, the crisis in agriculture should be recognised as a breakdown of nature's process. Accordingly, repairing nature's cycles and working in partnership with nature's process were viewed as central to the indigenous agricultural policy (Shiva 1991).

In a seminar, organised by the Agricultural Ministry on September 27, 1951, KM Munshi told the State Directors of Agricultural extension: "Study the life cycle of the village under your charge in both of its aspects — hydrological and nutritional. Find out where the cycle has been disturbed and estimate the steps necessary for restoring it. Work out the village in four of its aspects: (i) Existing conditions; (ii) steps necessary to completing the hydrological cycle; (iii) steps necessary to complete the nutritional cycle, and a complete picture of the village when the cycle is restored and; (iv) have faith in yourself and the programme. Nothing is too mean and nothing is too difficult for the man who believes that the restoration of the life's cycle is not only essential for freedom and happiness of India but is essential for her very existence".

Indian agriculture at a crossroad

Indian agriculture is at the crossroads now. One road will lead it to a dual production and consumption pattern where GM food will feed the hungry mouths. Technology-driven highly centralised second green revolution might create social tensions, as observed in Punjab, resulting in large-scale violence at a national scale. It will also make the Indian farm sector dependent on large corporations for capital and sophisticated genetic technology.

The other alternative path will lead us to decentralised self-reliant agriculture based on indigenous knowledge and local resources. By repairing nature's cycles, broken during the last seven decades, this path is likely to lead to a sustainable existence of 'ma mati manush'. It will also save our 'jal jangal zamin', from the clutches of global corporations!

The options are open and the choice is ours!

Views expressed are personal