Can China go green without disrupting their economic growth?
Fossil fuels provide most of the energy powering the world’s post populated country, but last month China committed to producing more energy from cleaner sources.
Liu Zhenya — the president of China's largest electric provider — said that China aims to produce 35 percent of its energy from "low-emissions" sources by 2020 at a press conference in Beijing, tells Bloomberg.com.
China is currently the world's leader in renewable energy production. However, a study by Wharton University shows that low emissions sources like hydro-electricity, wind power, and solar power make up only 8 percent of the nation's total energy capacity.
China’s demand for energy is expected to double over the next decade as well — increasing consumption rates, massive amounts of industrial exports, and construction growth could potentially push electricity consumption to nearly 8 trillion kilowatt-hours a year. At that rate China would consume twice as much the United States, which is the next biggest energy consumer after China.
Considering that China’s growth in energy consumption has more than tripled the world’s average in past years and nearly 90 percent of China's energy still comes from coal and oil, the Wharton University report estimates that the nation will need $3.7 trillion to maintain its projected energy growth.
For China, the numbers don’t add up. Their demand for energy is going to double over the next eleven years and the majority of their energy capacity is highly dependent on coal. The climb to 35 percent is either going to be relatively steep or they are going to spend a lot of money converting fossil fuels
Thursday, July 2, 2009
SRI LANKA: Rains raise fears of malaria setback
Health experts warn that the expected rains could increase the risk of waterborne diseases for tens of thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in camps in northern Sri Lanka. More than 280,000 people who fled fighting between government forces and the now defeated Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are staying in some 35 government camps in four northern districts - Vavuniya, Mannar, Jaffna and Trincomalee. The majority, 220,000, are living at the Menik Farm camp, a sprawling site of over 700ha outside Vavuniya town. “With such a large number of people concentrated together, there is always the risk of waterborne disease with the rains,” Laurent Sury, head of mission for Médecins Sans Frontières, told IRIN in Colombo. MSF runs a field hospital in Vavuniya District where more than 23 of the IDP camps are located, housing 260,000 IDPs.
There are around 115 patients at the MSF hospital now,” Sury said. Even though the World Health Organization (WHO) says no major disease outbreaks have been reported, the risk factors for malaria and diarrhoea have increased.WHO said the Ministry of Health had taken precautions to deal with a possible malaria outbreak, with proper surveillance mechanisms at all camps. Until 19 June, only 29 cases of malaria had been reported, but health officials initiated a high alert when two cases were reported on 18 June from zone 4 in Menik Farm. Field staff have been deployed to all hospitals and healthcare units assisting IDPs by the Regional Malaria Office for the Vavuniya District from 8 June. “This is an alarming situation considering the very small number of malaria cases reported from the entire country in the recent past,” the WHO update said. “An active surveillance for malaria is ... [ongoing].” Until 18 June, 1,060 cases of dysentery and more than 5,000 cases of diarrhoea had been reported from the camps, it said. "There is a serious threat of waterborne diseases because of so many people living so close together," one humanitarian official said, highlighting the risk posed by improper disposal of solid waste and rubbish in the camps. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on 27 June, the greatest needs were specialist doctors. “IDP health workers, paid by the government of Sri Lanka, are working in the IDP sites. Thirty-seven new doctors are expected to be appointed at the Vavuniya District within a week. However, a shortage of specialists remain,” OCHA confirmed
Chickenpox update According to the latest communicable Disease Weekly Update released on 25 June, surveillance within the camps by the Ministry of Health staff was being strengthened. The greatest disease outbreak reported so far was chickenpox, with more than 12,000 cases, but those numbers had since been decreasing, the UN reported. The number of new cases reported is steadily declining and admissions to hospitals are 40–50 patients per day, OCHA confirmed on 19 June. “In Vavuniya, the number of Hepatitis A cases is also declining. A total of 2,139 cases were reported as at 12 June,” the report added. Medical officers working with the displaced suspect that most of the chickenpox patients contracted the disease before they arrived in camps.
There are around 115 patients at the MSF hospital now,” Sury said. Even though the World Health Organization (WHO) says no major disease outbreaks have been reported, the risk factors for malaria and diarrhoea have increased.WHO said the Ministry of Health had taken precautions to deal with a possible malaria outbreak, with proper surveillance mechanisms at all camps. Until 19 June, only 29 cases of malaria had been reported, but health officials initiated a high alert when two cases were reported on 18 June from zone 4 in Menik Farm. Field staff have been deployed to all hospitals and healthcare units assisting IDPs by the Regional Malaria Office for the Vavuniya District from 8 June. “This is an alarming situation considering the very small number of malaria cases reported from the entire country in the recent past,” the WHO update said. “An active surveillance for malaria is ... [ongoing].” Until 18 June, 1,060 cases of dysentery and more than 5,000 cases of diarrhoea had been reported from the camps, it said. "There is a serious threat of waterborne diseases because of so many people living so close together," one humanitarian official said, highlighting the risk posed by improper disposal of solid waste and rubbish in the camps. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on 27 June, the greatest needs were specialist doctors. “IDP health workers, paid by the government of Sri Lanka, are working in the IDP sites. Thirty-seven new doctors are expected to be appointed at the Vavuniya District within a week. However, a shortage of specialists remain,” OCHA confirmed
Chickenpox update According to the latest communicable Disease Weekly Update released on 25 June, surveillance within the camps by the Ministry of Health staff was being strengthened. The greatest disease outbreak reported so far was chickenpox, with more than 12,000 cases, but those numbers had since been decreasing, the UN reported. The number of new cases reported is steadily declining and admissions to hospitals are 40–50 patients per day, OCHA confirmed on 19 June. “In Vavuniya, the number of Hepatitis A cases is also declining. A total of 2,139 cases were reported as at 12 June,” the report added. Medical officers working with the displaced suspect that most of the chickenpox patients contracted the disease before they arrived in camps.
India Should Combine Tough Climate Stand With Green Policy
The emergence of a Congress Party-led coalition government with a comfortable majority could not have been better timed. A government with a strong mandate is well placed to define India’s long-term strategy towards climate change, and to call for the steps that the nation and the world need to take at the Copenhagen climate summit scheduled for December.
These climate negotiations are easily the most complex collaborative effort the world has undertaken, and India, like all nations, is being asked to sign on to the deal being worked out at Copenhagen. India is likely to be among the most affected by coming climate shifts – in prediction maps, the subcontinent shows up as dark red, threatened by melting ice caps, shifting rainfall patterns and rising sea levels. The Indian government rightly points out that the burden of cutting carbon emissions should lie with the developed nations responsible for the accumulated levels of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
The opening sessions to the Copenhagen negotiations have indicated that developed nations that were early holdouts from Kyoto – including Australia and the US – may eventually sign the climate deal. But as the deadline for an agreement nears, developed country targets and planned carbon-reducing strategies are falling victim to local politics. In Europe, the largesse in carbon trading permits to industries has allowed them to pollute at rock-bottom prices. The developing world’s unwillingness to take on caps has also become a defense for groups opposed to emission cuts. In the US, the Waxman-Markey carbon bill is facing opposition from those who argue that without India and China’s participation, US curbs will have no overall impact.
The big question for India here is how it can reconcile its own goals with the aim of building an effective global climate deal. One way to move forward is for India to reiterate a commitment that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pledged at the G8 Heiligendamm summit in June 2007: that India will not exceed, between now and 2050, the per capita emissions of developed nations.
India cannot be expected to take on binding emission cuts over and above this commitment. It is only fair that Western nations take responsibility for the accumulation of GHGs over the last century. Independent assessments support this view that India should stay away from mandatory cuts. They’ve shown that even with rapid growth, it will still remain among the least carbon intensive countries in the next few decades. Besides, much of India’s future emission growth, the World Bank points out, will come from providing essential energy services to its population.
Another aspect of fairness that the country should focus on during negotiations is ensuring financial flows and technology transfers from developed nations to the developing world, for climate mitigation and adaptation. This is literally a hundred billion dollar issue – the estimated costs of mitigation for India. But this has long been a sore point for Indian negotiators. The proposals of assistance from developed nations have fallen far short of what India needs, and one Indian diplomat recently compared these to offering to 'push a broken down car, but with two fingers'. Besides financing, India must insist on programs tailored to its economic needs, which include support for carbon reducing technologies and microfinance schemes, as well as expertise in sustainable urban and industry growth. An emphasis on fairness also means that developed countries refrain from imposing carbon tariffs on exports from India.
While taking a firm stand in international negotiations, India has to take a closer look at its domestic approach to climate change. The growing concern among Indian environmental activists is that the government’s stance globally is coloring its local environmental efforts. “The defense of our emissions internationally has been long used to justify apathy towards controlling pollution in India,” the Indian environmentalist Sharad Lele told me. This attitude ignores the increasing negative impact of pollution on India’s agriculture, urbanization and economic growth. It is becoming clear that the traditional, carbon-intensive model of growth will not work here for long – we have to embrace a low-carbon approach.
In 2008, India’s Congress Party-led government put in place a National Action Plan on Climate Change, which emphasized renewable energy, adaptation and greater energy efficiency. Now returned to power, the government has the chance to intensify these efforts. This includes low-pain measures such as zero tariffs on low emission products, and tax exemptions for clean energy investments. More ambitious policy could include a smart grid through which people can both buy and sell excess energy, and efficiency and pollution standards that nudge industry towards greener choices.
The new government has already tabled plans to account for the depletion of natural resources while calculating India’s GDP. However, India has been reticent when it comes to ambitious attempts at controlling pollution and emissions, on the concern that it will hurt its economy.
In doing so, the country may have overlooked the opportunities that come with a pro-environmental policy. The burden of pollution has fallen disproportionately on the poor. Over 80% of India’s rural poor depend on the country’s degraded common lands and water, and on its declining forests. For India’s legislators, whose emphasis in recent years has been on ‘pro-poor’ policy and addressing income inequalities, a low-carbon approach ought to then be an overriding interest.
yale global online
Nandan Nilekani
These climate negotiations are easily the most complex collaborative effort the world has undertaken, and India, like all nations, is being asked to sign on to the deal being worked out at Copenhagen. India is likely to be among the most affected by coming climate shifts – in prediction maps, the subcontinent shows up as dark red, threatened by melting ice caps, shifting rainfall patterns and rising sea levels. The Indian government rightly points out that the burden of cutting carbon emissions should lie with the developed nations responsible for the accumulated levels of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
The opening sessions to the Copenhagen negotiations have indicated that developed nations that were early holdouts from Kyoto – including Australia and the US – may eventually sign the climate deal. But as the deadline for an agreement nears, developed country targets and planned carbon-reducing strategies are falling victim to local politics. In Europe, the largesse in carbon trading permits to industries has allowed them to pollute at rock-bottom prices. The developing world’s unwillingness to take on caps has also become a defense for groups opposed to emission cuts. In the US, the Waxman-Markey carbon bill is facing opposition from those who argue that without India and China’s participation, US curbs will have no overall impact.
The big question for India here is how it can reconcile its own goals with the aim of building an effective global climate deal. One way to move forward is for India to reiterate a commitment that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pledged at the G8 Heiligendamm summit in June 2007: that India will not exceed, between now and 2050, the per capita emissions of developed nations.
India cannot be expected to take on binding emission cuts over and above this commitment. It is only fair that Western nations take responsibility for the accumulation of GHGs over the last century. Independent assessments support this view that India should stay away from mandatory cuts. They’ve shown that even with rapid growth, it will still remain among the least carbon intensive countries in the next few decades. Besides, much of India’s future emission growth, the World Bank points out, will come from providing essential energy services to its population.
Another aspect of fairness that the country should focus on during negotiations is ensuring financial flows and technology transfers from developed nations to the developing world, for climate mitigation and adaptation. This is literally a hundred billion dollar issue – the estimated costs of mitigation for India. But this has long been a sore point for Indian negotiators. The proposals of assistance from developed nations have fallen far short of what India needs, and one Indian diplomat recently compared these to offering to 'push a broken down car, but with two fingers'. Besides financing, India must insist on programs tailored to its economic needs, which include support for carbon reducing technologies and microfinance schemes, as well as expertise in sustainable urban and industry growth. An emphasis on fairness also means that developed countries refrain from imposing carbon tariffs on exports from India.
While taking a firm stand in international negotiations, India has to take a closer look at its domestic approach to climate change. The growing concern among Indian environmental activists is that the government’s stance globally is coloring its local environmental efforts. “The defense of our emissions internationally has been long used to justify apathy towards controlling pollution in India,” the Indian environmentalist Sharad Lele told me. This attitude ignores the increasing negative impact of pollution on India’s agriculture, urbanization and economic growth. It is becoming clear that the traditional, carbon-intensive model of growth will not work here for long – we have to embrace a low-carbon approach.
In 2008, India’s Congress Party-led government put in place a National Action Plan on Climate Change, which emphasized renewable energy, adaptation and greater energy efficiency. Now returned to power, the government has the chance to intensify these efforts. This includes low-pain measures such as zero tariffs on low emission products, and tax exemptions for clean energy investments. More ambitious policy could include a smart grid through which people can both buy and sell excess energy, and efficiency and pollution standards that nudge industry towards greener choices.
The new government has already tabled plans to account for the depletion of natural resources while calculating India’s GDP. However, India has been reticent when it comes to ambitious attempts at controlling pollution and emissions, on the concern that it will hurt its economy.
In doing so, the country may have overlooked the opportunities that come with a pro-environmental policy. The burden of pollution has fallen disproportionately on the poor. Over 80% of India’s rural poor depend on the country’s degraded common lands and water, and on its declining forests. For India’s legislators, whose emphasis in recent years has been on ‘pro-poor’ policy and addressing income inequalities, a low-carbon approach ought to then be an overriding interest.
yale global online
Nandan Nilekani
A New Green Revolution in India?
Over the past few years, hundreds of thousands of farmers in rural India have transitioned organic farming. But can these families grow enough to compete with conventional agriculture?
India’s agricultural history, especially in the 20th century, has been haunted by the Bengal famine of 1943, in which food scarcity led to the deaths of 4 million people. In order to combat a future national hunger crisis, the American plant breeder Norman Borlaug worked with Indian scientists, farmers, and politicians to promote the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 70s. New seeds, fertilizers and agricultural technology were introduced and, for a while, dramatically improved crop yields to feed India’s hungry and growing population.
After its initial success, however, the accumulation of chemicals in the ground damaged the soil and crop yields declined. Over time, more and more fertilizer had to be used to achieve the same yields as before, and for some farmers, the benefit of fertilizers and pesticides eventually outweighed by the costs it incurred.
But according to recent report from NPR, some farmers are making the switch to more varied crops instead of a single-crop farms to improve the nutrients in the soil.
Despite its growing popularity in India as well as around the world, some agribusiness companies like Monsanto worry that organic techniques just aren't as efficient as those developed during the green revolution, and will leave those immediately affected by the switch to organic without enough food to survive.
Worries about food distribution are justified. Approximately 2.1 million children under five die each year in India, with over half of those deaths directly related to malnutrition — of those who survive, another half will suffer from malnutrition-related stunted growth. Still, organic farmers around the world argue that given time, government support, and technological advances, the sustainability of organic farming will in fact increase the productivity and the safety of food given to those at greatest risk.
According to international organizations like the World Bank and the farmers themselves, it is not just agriculture itself that needs a face-lift in India, but also the bureaucracy and policy that surrounds it. A recent study by the Punjab State Farmers Commission cited by NPR found that 70 percent of India's farms could go organic and maintain appropriate food production. It also suggests that India redirect some of it's government funding to organic farming infrastructure and research, thus recognizing its future place in India's food production.
Gurcharan Kalkat, a member of the commission, told NPR he believes in the organic movement. "Only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But … this one has to be sustainable."
With a population of 1.15 billion, the population of India is three times that of the United States. It also has 30 times the number of organic farmers. Some, like Grist food editor Tom Philpott, think the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from an Indian organic farmer, rethinking the ways to feed a massive population on healthy, sustainable crops.
India’s agricultural history, especially in the 20th century, has been haunted by the Bengal famine of 1943, in which food scarcity led to the deaths of 4 million people. In order to combat a future national hunger crisis, the American plant breeder Norman Borlaug worked with Indian scientists, farmers, and politicians to promote the Green Revolution of the 1960s and 70s. New seeds, fertilizers and agricultural technology were introduced and, for a while, dramatically improved crop yields to feed India’s hungry and growing population.
After its initial success, however, the accumulation of chemicals in the ground damaged the soil and crop yields declined. Over time, more and more fertilizer had to be used to achieve the same yields as before, and for some farmers, the benefit of fertilizers and pesticides eventually outweighed by the costs it incurred.
But according to recent report from NPR, some farmers are making the switch to more varied crops instead of a single-crop farms to improve the nutrients in the soil.
Despite its growing popularity in India as well as around the world, some agribusiness companies like Monsanto worry that organic techniques just aren't as efficient as those developed during the green revolution, and will leave those immediately affected by the switch to organic without enough food to survive.
Worries about food distribution are justified. Approximately 2.1 million children under five die each year in India, with over half of those deaths directly related to malnutrition — of those who survive, another half will suffer from malnutrition-related stunted growth. Still, organic farmers around the world argue that given time, government support, and technological advances, the sustainability of organic farming will in fact increase the productivity and the safety of food given to those at greatest risk.
According to international organizations like the World Bank and the farmers themselves, it is not just agriculture itself that needs a face-lift in India, but also the bureaucracy and policy that surrounds it. A recent study by the Punjab State Farmers Commission cited by NPR found that 70 percent of India's farms could go organic and maintain appropriate food production. It also suggests that India redirect some of it's government funding to organic farming infrastructure and research, thus recognizing its future place in India's food production.
Gurcharan Kalkat, a member of the commission, told NPR he believes in the organic movement. "Only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But … this one has to be sustainable."
With a population of 1.15 billion, the population of India is three times that of the United States. It also has 30 times the number of organic farmers. Some, like Grist food editor Tom Philpott, think the rest of the world could learn a thing or two from an Indian organic farmer, rethinking the ways to feed a massive population on healthy, sustainable crops.
Green Revolution in India : A Case Study
The world's worst recorded food disaster happened in 1943 in British-ruled India . Known as the Bengal Famine, an estimated four million people died of hunger that year alone in eastern India (that included today's Bangladesh ). The initial theory put forward to 'explain' that catastrophe was that there as an acute shortfall in food production in the area. However, Indian economist Amartya Sen (recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics, 1998) has established that while food shortage was a contributor to the problem, a more potent factor was the result of hysteria related to World War II which made food supply a low priority for the British rulers. The hysteria was further exploited by Indian traders who hoarded food in order to sell at higher prices.
Nevertheless, when the British left India four years later in 1947, India continued to be haunted by memories of the Bengal Famine. It was therefore natural that food security was a paramount item on free India 's agenda. This awareness led, on one hand, to the Green Revolution in India and, on the other, legislative measures to ensure that businessmen would never again be able to hoard food for reasons of profit.
However, the term "Green Revolution" is applied to the period from 1967 to 1978 and even into today. Between 1947 and 1967, efforts at achieving food self-sufficiency were not entirely successful. Efforts until 1967 largely concentrated on expanding the farming areas. But starvation deaths were still being reported in the newspapers. In a perfect case of Malthusian economics, population was growing at a much faster rate than food production. This called for drastic action to increase yield. The action came in the form of the Green Revolution.
The term "Green Revolution" is a general one that is applied to successful agricultural experiments in many Third World countries. It is NOT specific to India . But it was perhaps most successful in India .
What was the Green Revolution in India ?
There were three basic elements in the method of the Green Revolution:
1) Continued expansion of farming areas;
2) Double-cropping existing farmland;
3) Using seeds with improved genetics.
Continued expansion of farming areas
As mentioned above, the area of land under cultivation was being increased right from 1947. But this was not enough in meeting with rising demand. Other methods were required. Yet, the expansion of cultivable land also had to continue. So, the Green Revolution continued with this quantitative expansion of farmlands. However, this is NOT the most striking feature of the Revolution.
Double-cropping existing farmland
Double-cropping was a primary feature of the Green Revolution. Instead of one crop season per year, the decision was made to have two crop seasons per year. The one-season-per-year practice was based on the fact that there is only natural monsoon per year. This was correct. So, there had to be two "monsoons" per year. One would be the natural monsoon and the other an artificial 'monsoon.'
The artificial monsoon came in the form of huge irrigation facilities. Dams were built to arrest large volumes of natural monsoon water which were earlier being wasted. Simple irrigation techniques were also adopted.
Using seeds with superior genetics
This was the scientific aspect of the Green Revolution. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (which was established by the British in 1929 but was not known to have done any significant research) was re-organized in 1965 and then again in 1973. It developed new strains of high yield value (HYV) seeds, mainly wheat and rice but also millet and corn. The most noteworthy HYV seed was the K68 variety for wheat. The credit for developing this strain goes to Dr. M.P. Singh who is also regarded as the hero of India 's Green revolution.
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution
1) The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978-79. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world, which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success. India also became an exporter of food grains around that time.
2) Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
3) The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
Economic results of the Green Revolution
1) Crop areas under high-yield varieties needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, fungicides and certain other chemicals. This spurred the growth of the local manufacturing sector. Such industrial growth created new jobs and contributed to the country's GDP.
2) The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydroelectric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
3) India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India 's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
4) Some developed countries, especially Canada , which were facing a shortage in agricultural labor, were so impressed by the results of India 's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India . This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India 's foreign exchange earnings.
Sociological results of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution created plenty of jobs not only for agricultural workers but also industrial workers by the creation of lateral facilities such as factories and hydro-electric power stations as explained above.
Political results of the Green Revolution
1) India transformed itself from a starving nation to an exporter of food. This earned admiration for India in the comity of nations, especially in the Third World .
2) The Green Revolution was one factor that made Mrs Indira Gandhi (1917-84) and her party, the Indian National Congress, a very powerful political force in India (it would however be wrong to say that it was the only reason).
Limitations of the Green Revolution
1) Even today, India 's agricultural output sometimes falls short of demand. The Green Revolution, howsoever impressive, has thus NOT succeeded in making India totally and permanently self-sufficient in food. In 1979 and 1987, India faced severe drought conditions due to poor monsoon; this raised questions about the whether the Green Revolution was really a long-term achievement. In 1998, India had to import onions. Last year, India imported sugar.
However, in today's globalized economic scenario, 100 per cent self-sufficiency is not considered as vital a target as it was when the world political climate was more dangerous due to the Cold War.
2) India has failed to extend the concept of high-yield value seeds to all crops or all regions. In terms of crops, it remains largely confined to foodgrains only, not to all kinds of agricultural produce. In regional terms, only Punjab and Haryana states showed the best results of the Green Revolution. The eastern plains of the River Ganges in West Bengal state also showed reasonably good results. But results were less impressive in other parts of India .
3) Nothing like the Bengal Famine can happen in India again. But it is disturbing to note that even today, there are places like Kalahandi (in India 's eastern state of Orissa) where famine-like conditions have existed for many years and where some starvation deaths have also been reported. Of course, this is due to reasons other than availability of food in India , but the very fact that some people are still starving in India (whatever the reason may be), brings into question whether the Green Revolution has failed in its overall social objectives though it has been a resounding success in terms of agricultural production.
4) The Green Revolution cannot therefore be considered to be a 100 per cent success.
(From Saby Ganguly, http://www.indiaonestop.com/Greenrevolution.htm)
Questions:
1. What were the causes and results of the Bengal Famine in 1943?
2. Briefly describe the three basic elements of the Green Revolution in India:
3. List two positive results of the Green Revolution in India:
4. List three positive economic, sociologic, or political results of the Green revolution in India:
5. Briefly describe two limitations of the Green revolution in India:
Argumentative Essay:
The Green revolution is the answer to the world's food supply problem. Agree or disagree.
Create a three paragraph argumentative essay that introduces the opposite point of view you are taking. Read all of the Pro and Con statements and establish your thesis (you may use the concepts presented in the statements, but you cannot plagiarize or simply rewrite the statements in your essay). Your first paragraph should explain the opposite point of view (e.g. It is commonly accepted that the Green Revolution is the answer to the world's food supply problem ...) The following paragraphs will contain your main ideas that support your position and refute the ideas presented in the first paragraph.
This technique allows the reader to see both sides of the argument. Also, by explaining the opposite position, you solidify your claims because you demonstrate that you have studied both sides of the issue and have come to your conclusions through careful analysis.
Nevertheless, when the British left India four years later in 1947, India continued to be haunted by memories of the Bengal Famine. It was therefore natural that food security was a paramount item on free India 's agenda. This awareness led, on one hand, to the Green Revolution in India and, on the other, legislative measures to ensure that businessmen would never again be able to hoard food for reasons of profit.
However, the term "Green Revolution" is applied to the period from 1967 to 1978 and even into today. Between 1947 and 1967, efforts at achieving food self-sufficiency were not entirely successful. Efforts until 1967 largely concentrated on expanding the farming areas. But starvation deaths were still being reported in the newspapers. In a perfect case of Malthusian economics, population was growing at a much faster rate than food production. This called for drastic action to increase yield. The action came in the form of the Green Revolution.
The term "Green Revolution" is a general one that is applied to successful agricultural experiments in many Third World countries. It is NOT specific to India . But it was perhaps most successful in India .
What was the Green Revolution in India ?
There were three basic elements in the method of the Green Revolution:
1) Continued expansion of farming areas;
2) Double-cropping existing farmland;
3) Using seeds with improved genetics.
Continued expansion of farming areas
As mentioned above, the area of land under cultivation was being increased right from 1947. But this was not enough in meeting with rising demand. Other methods were required. Yet, the expansion of cultivable land also had to continue. So, the Green Revolution continued with this quantitative expansion of farmlands. However, this is NOT the most striking feature of the Revolution.
Double-cropping existing farmland
Double-cropping was a primary feature of the Green Revolution. Instead of one crop season per year, the decision was made to have two crop seasons per year. The one-season-per-year practice was based on the fact that there is only natural monsoon per year. This was correct. So, there had to be two "monsoons" per year. One would be the natural monsoon and the other an artificial 'monsoon.'
The artificial monsoon came in the form of huge irrigation facilities. Dams were built to arrest large volumes of natural monsoon water which were earlier being wasted. Simple irrigation techniques were also adopted.
Using seeds with superior genetics
This was the scientific aspect of the Green Revolution. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (which was established by the British in 1929 but was not known to have done any significant research) was re-organized in 1965 and then again in 1973. It developed new strains of high yield value (HYV) seeds, mainly wheat and rice but also millet and corn. The most noteworthy HYV seed was the K68 variety for wheat. The credit for developing this strain goes to Dr. M.P. Singh who is also regarded as the hero of India 's Green revolution.
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution
1) The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978-79. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world, which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success. India also became an exporter of food grains around that time.
2) Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
3) The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
Economic results of the Green Revolution
1) Crop areas under high-yield varieties needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, fungicides and certain other chemicals. This spurred the growth of the local manufacturing sector. Such industrial growth created new jobs and contributed to the country's GDP.
2) The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydroelectric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
3) India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India 's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
4) Some developed countries, especially Canada , which were facing a shortage in agricultural labor, were so impressed by the results of India 's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India . This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India 's foreign exchange earnings.
Sociological results of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution created plenty of jobs not only for agricultural workers but also industrial workers by the creation of lateral facilities such as factories and hydro-electric power stations as explained above.
Political results of the Green Revolution
1) India transformed itself from a starving nation to an exporter of food. This earned admiration for India in the comity of nations, especially in the Third World .
2) The Green Revolution was one factor that made Mrs Indira Gandhi (1917-84) and her party, the Indian National Congress, a very powerful political force in India (it would however be wrong to say that it was the only reason).
Limitations of the Green Revolution
1) Even today, India 's agricultural output sometimes falls short of demand. The Green Revolution, howsoever impressive, has thus NOT succeeded in making India totally and permanently self-sufficient in food. In 1979 and 1987, India faced severe drought conditions due to poor monsoon; this raised questions about the whether the Green Revolution was really a long-term achievement. In 1998, India had to import onions. Last year, India imported sugar.
However, in today's globalized economic scenario, 100 per cent self-sufficiency is not considered as vital a target as it was when the world political climate was more dangerous due to the Cold War.
2) India has failed to extend the concept of high-yield value seeds to all crops or all regions. In terms of crops, it remains largely confined to foodgrains only, not to all kinds of agricultural produce. In regional terms, only Punjab and Haryana states showed the best results of the Green Revolution. The eastern plains of the River Ganges in West Bengal state also showed reasonably good results. But results were less impressive in other parts of India .
3) Nothing like the Bengal Famine can happen in India again. But it is disturbing to note that even today, there are places like Kalahandi (in India 's eastern state of Orissa) where famine-like conditions have existed for many years and where some starvation deaths have also been reported. Of course, this is due to reasons other than availability of food in India , but the very fact that some people are still starving in India (whatever the reason may be), brings into question whether the Green Revolution has failed in its overall social objectives though it has been a resounding success in terms of agricultural production.
4) The Green Revolution cannot therefore be considered to be a 100 per cent success.
(From Saby Ganguly, http://www.indiaonestop.com/Greenrevolution.htm)
Questions:
1. What were the causes and results of the Bengal Famine in 1943?
2. Briefly describe the three basic elements of the Green Revolution in India:
3. List two positive results of the Green Revolution in India:
4. List three positive economic, sociologic, or political results of the Green revolution in India:
5. Briefly describe two limitations of the Green revolution in India:
Argumentative Essay:
The Green revolution is the answer to the world's food supply problem. Agree or disagree.
Create a three paragraph argumentative essay that introduces the opposite point of view you are taking. Read all of the Pro and Con statements and establish your thesis (you may use the concepts presented in the statements, but you cannot plagiarize or simply rewrite the statements in your essay). Your first paragraph should explain the opposite point of view (e.g. It is commonly accepted that the Green Revolution is the answer to the world's food supply problem ...) The following paragraphs will contain your main ideas that support your position and refute the ideas presented in the first paragraph.
This technique allows the reader to see both sides of the argument. Also, by explaining the opposite position, you solidify your claims because you demonstrate that you have studied both sides of the issue and have come to your conclusions through careful analysis.
'Green Revolution' Trapping India's Farmers In Debt
As the world's population surges, the international community faces a pressing problem: How will it feed everybody?
Until recently, people thought India had an answer.
Farmers in the state of Punjab abandoned traditional farming methods in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the national program called the "Green Revolution," backed by advisers from the U.S. and other countries.
Indian farmers started growing crops the American way — with chemicals, high-yield seeds and irrigation.
Since then, India has gone from importing grain like a beggar, to often exporting it.
But studies show the Green Revolution is heading for collapse.
A Thirst For Water
On a recent morning, a drilling rig is pounding away in the middle of a wheat field near the village of Chotia Khurd. The sound, part jackhammer and part pile driver, is becoming increasingly common in the farm fields of northern India's Punjab region.
The farmer, Sandeep Singh, is supervising and looking unhappy as the rig hammers away, driving deeper and deeper under his field in search of water.
When India's government launched the Green Revolution more than 40 years ago, it pressured farmers to grow only high-yield wheat, rice and cotton instead of their traditional mix of crops.
The new miracle seeds could produce far bigger yields than farmers had ever seen, but they came with a catch: The thirsty crops needed much more water than natural rainfall could provide, so farmers had to dig wells and irrigate with groundwater.
The system worked well for years, but government studies show that farmers have pumped so much groundwater to irrigate their crops that the water table is dropping dramatically, as much as 3 feet every year.
So farmers like Sandeep keep hiring the drilling company to come back to their fields, to bore the wells ever deeper — on this day, to more than 200 feet.
Farmers In Debt
The groundwater problem has touched off an economic chain reaction. As the farmers dig deeper to find groundwater, they have to install ever more powerful and more expensive pumps to send it gushing up to their fields.
Sandeep says his new pump costs more than $4,000. He and most other farmers have to borrow that kind of cash, but they are already so deep in debt that conventional banks often turn them away.
So Sandeep and his neighbors have turned to "unofficial" lenders — local businessmen who charge at least double the banks' interest rate. The district agriculture director, Palwinder Singh, says farmers can end up paying a whopping 24 percent.
Another side effect of the groundwater crisis is evident at the edge of the fields — thin straggly rows of wheat and a whitish powder scattered across the soil.
The white substance is salt residue. Drilling deep wells to find fresh water often taps brackish underground pools, and the salty water poisons the crops.
"The salt causes root injuries," Palwinder says. "The root cannot take the nutrients from the soil."
Destroying The Soil
In the village of Chotia Khurd, farmers agree that the Green Revolution used to work miracles for many of them. But now, it's like financial quicksand.
Studies show that their intensive farming methods, which government policies subsidize, are destroying the soil. The high-yield crops gobble up nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and manganese, making the soil anemic.
The farmers say they must use three times as much fertilizer as they used to, to produce the same amount of crops — yet another drain on their finances.
A farmer named Suba Singh has seen the good and bad effects of the Green Revolution.
Clad in a bright blue turban and his face furrowed like a field, he opens a squeaky wooden gate to his compound. He points to a small building made of mud and straw, with faded green doors.
"That's where my family used to live," he says.
During the profitable years of the Green Revolution, he saw that everyone else in the village was building brick houses.
"So I took out a loan," he says, "and built a brick house for my family, too."
He turned the old mud house into his cattle shed. But now he is in debt.
A study by the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology calls it a "vicious cycle of debt."
Suba and the other farmers say they've had to borrow money to buy just about everything that makes them look prosperous — their brick homes, tractors, cattle, even their plastic chairs.
The farmers have also built their Green Revolution farms and lifestyle on another unstable source of money: Family members have moved overseas to find jobs, because they couldn't make a living farming, and now they send part of their income back to Chotia Khurd to support their relatives.
"It's like a disease that is catching on in the world," says Suba, "building a life that is like a house of cards."
A System About To Collapse?
Some leading officials in the farming industry wonder when this house of cards might collapse.
"The state and farmers are now faced with a crisis," warns a report by the Punjab State Farmers Commission.
India's population is growing faster than any country on Earth, and domestic food production is vital.
But the commission's director, G.S. Kalkat, says Punjab's farmers are committing ecological and economic "suicide."
If he is correct, suicide is coming through national policies that reward farmers for the very practices that destroy the environment and trap them in debt.
Kalkat says only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But he says this one has to be sustainable.
The problem is, nobody has yet perfected a farming system that produces high yields, makes a good living for farm families, protects and enhances the environment — and still produces good, affordable food.
Until recently, people thought India had an answer.
Farmers in the state of Punjab abandoned traditional farming methods in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the national program called the "Green Revolution," backed by advisers from the U.S. and other countries.
Indian farmers started growing crops the American way — with chemicals, high-yield seeds and irrigation.
Since then, India has gone from importing grain like a beggar, to often exporting it.
But studies show the Green Revolution is heading for collapse.
A Thirst For Water
On a recent morning, a drilling rig is pounding away in the middle of a wheat field near the village of Chotia Khurd. The sound, part jackhammer and part pile driver, is becoming increasingly common in the farm fields of northern India's Punjab region.
The farmer, Sandeep Singh, is supervising and looking unhappy as the rig hammers away, driving deeper and deeper under his field in search of water.
When India's government launched the Green Revolution more than 40 years ago, it pressured farmers to grow only high-yield wheat, rice and cotton instead of their traditional mix of crops.
The new miracle seeds could produce far bigger yields than farmers had ever seen, but they came with a catch: The thirsty crops needed much more water than natural rainfall could provide, so farmers had to dig wells and irrigate with groundwater.
The system worked well for years, but government studies show that farmers have pumped so much groundwater to irrigate their crops that the water table is dropping dramatically, as much as 3 feet every year.
So farmers like Sandeep keep hiring the drilling company to come back to their fields, to bore the wells ever deeper — on this day, to more than 200 feet.
Farmers In Debt
The groundwater problem has touched off an economic chain reaction. As the farmers dig deeper to find groundwater, they have to install ever more powerful and more expensive pumps to send it gushing up to their fields.
Sandeep says his new pump costs more than $4,000. He and most other farmers have to borrow that kind of cash, but they are already so deep in debt that conventional banks often turn them away.
So Sandeep and his neighbors have turned to "unofficial" lenders — local businessmen who charge at least double the banks' interest rate. The district agriculture director, Palwinder Singh, says farmers can end up paying a whopping 24 percent.
Another side effect of the groundwater crisis is evident at the edge of the fields — thin straggly rows of wheat and a whitish powder scattered across the soil.
The white substance is salt residue. Drilling deep wells to find fresh water often taps brackish underground pools, and the salty water poisons the crops.
"The salt causes root injuries," Palwinder says. "The root cannot take the nutrients from the soil."
Destroying The Soil
In the village of Chotia Khurd, farmers agree that the Green Revolution used to work miracles for many of them. But now, it's like financial quicksand.
Studies show that their intensive farming methods, which government policies subsidize, are destroying the soil. The high-yield crops gobble up nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and manganese, making the soil anemic.
The farmers say they must use three times as much fertilizer as they used to, to produce the same amount of crops — yet another drain on their finances.
A farmer named Suba Singh has seen the good and bad effects of the Green Revolution.
Clad in a bright blue turban and his face furrowed like a field, he opens a squeaky wooden gate to his compound. He points to a small building made of mud and straw, with faded green doors.
"That's where my family used to live," he says.
During the profitable years of the Green Revolution, he saw that everyone else in the village was building brick houses.
"So I took out a loan," he says, "and built a brick house for my family, too."
He turned the old mud house into his cattle shed. But now he is in debt.
A study by the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology calls it a "vicious cycle of debt."
Suba and the other farmers say they've had to borrow money to buy just about everything that makes them look prosperous — their brick homes, tractors, cattle, even their plastic chairs.
The farmers have also built their Green Revolution farms and lifestyle on another unstable source of money: Family members have moved overseas to find jobs, because they couldn't make a living farming, and now they send part of their income back to Chotia Khurd to support their relatives.
"It's like a disease that is catching on in the world," says Suba, "building a life that is like a house of cards."
A System About To Collapse?
Some leading officials in the farming industry wonder when this house of cards might collapse.
"The state and farmers are now faced with a crisis," warns a report by the Punjab State Farmers Commission.
India's population is growing faster than any country on Earth, and domestic food production is vital.
But the commission's director, G.S. Kalkat, says Punjab's farmers are committing ecological and economic "suicide."
If he is correct, suicide is coming through national policies that reward farmers for the very practices that destroy the environment and trap them in debt.
Kalkat says only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But he says this one has to be sustainable.
The problem is, nobody has yet perfected a farming system that produces high yields, makes a good living for farm families, protects and enhances the environment — and still produces good, affordable food.
From famine to plenty, from humiliation to dignity
India's food-grains production has hovered around a fifth of a billion tonnes mark in recent years. More than self-sufficient, India frequently exports its surpluses. India in 55 years has emerged from famine ridden colonial times, as a famine free Republic. Its population has nearly tripled in that period. More significantly, India in 1947,lost some of its most fertile lands. But she has managed to stand up and falsify many prophesies of doom. India was the greatest success story of the Green Revolution. Although today her agriculture is at a cross-roads again, the Green Revolution of the sixties gained some crucial decades for India in which to rethink her way forward. The Revolution is also worth remembering for India's capacity for collective action. Pause a while therefore, before you decry India's administration for every ill in the land.
Famine kingdom:
If the shame of the German Reich was the Holocaust, the British Empire --the Reich's great adversary-- matched it with the Bengal Famine. Both occurred around the same time and the scores were about even: 3 million dead in each. As a consequence of heartlessness and inept governance, the Great Famine of 1943-44 has no equal. Heavily taxed and left to themselves and the monsoons, India's farmers began the forties with falling, failing crops. The 'war effort' meant seizure of farm produce, banning of grain trade and turning the gaze away from the countryside. Result was, destitute folk began to arrive in Kolkata looking for food. Fearing that declaring an official famine would mandate supplying food diverted from its armed forces, the Empire simply let people die in the streets. And then within three years, with the war won, the British upped and left a traumatised, dismembered India.
The young nation was the object of much mockery world-wide. "Starving millions" was the phrase flung at it for an identity. Though the Indian farmer was back plying his heartache trade, shortages recurred. India was a massive importer, the tonnage peaking at 10 million in 1966. Humiliation was heaped upon it in a book : "Famine 1975" [Paddock and Paddock, 1965]. The authors predicted that by 1975 Indians would die in their millions. They suggested that the world turn its attention away from this hopeless land. Thomas Malthus probably concurred from his grave. Many nations of course helped, notably the USA with its massive PL-480 programme. The Indian government gamely coped with the times. It was a decade of much hardship and morale sapping pessimism.
The tide turns:
The story of how what came to be called the Green Revolution began is an exciting one. The story's moral is that hope is always buried within tragedy. Shortly after the Bengal Famine, MacArthur's victorious US army marched into Japan. In the huge occupation force was S. Cecil Salmon of the US Agricultural Research Service [ARS]. Many initiatives were being considered for rebuilding Japan. Salmon was focused on agriculture and that was how he chanced upon the legendary Norin strain of wheat that was to trigger the Revolution. Norin was a dwarf variety with little foliage and a heavy head of grain. Salmon sent this to the US for further study. In Washington State University at Pullman, a team under Orville Vogel researched the dwarf wheat. They bred many prototypes and finally created in 1959 the Gaines dwarf. It had been 13 long years of experimentation. Norman Borlaug --that icon of the Green Revolution-- picked up Gaines and crossed it with Mexico's best varieties at the International Maize and Wheat Research Centre there. He had the magic bullet -- he waited to unleash the Revolution.
By the 1960's India was desperate for a breakthrough. The nation's self-confidence was at an ebb. The Chinese had delivered a military lesson. Nehru was aging. Political uncertainty loomed. Food crises were endemic. Total food production hung around about 50 million tonnes. Marginal increases were only through bringing more land area under cultivation and not through increases in productivity. Food reserves were nil. India was just about meeting its deficit with imports. Clearly a quantum leap was needed.
It was then that India discovered Borlaug and the Norin dwarf. A small field at Pusa was seeded and the results were dramatic. It was what India had been waiting for. What then followed was a display of commitment and implementation that has stood to inspire India in many other fields. It is a milestone to cherish. Though the Green Revolution was a worldwide phenomenon its most successful revolutionaries were India's political leadership, bureaucrats, scientists and of course the farmers.
What it took:
Once Borlaug and India were convinced that they had a solution, the realisation of what needed to be done dawned. It was a formidable task. But India had its men in place. Of the ones that are easily named are C. Subramaniam, B. P. Pal and M.S.Swaminathan. In the end however, literally millions of Indians were active parts of the Revolution.
C. Subramaniam was in 1965, the Union Minister for Agriculture. He had trudged a long road, as a Gandhi devotee, freedom fighter and as a member of India's Constituent Assembly. Most of all he was a modern mind and a man of action. Swaminathan was an entirely home-grown plant genetist of repute. He emerged as Subramaniam's able lieutenant. In 1996, Subramaniam took the politically bold decision of importing 18,000 tonnes of the dwarf wheat seeds of the Lerma Rojo 64A and Sonora 64 variety.
The induction of an agricultural technology is not a mere question of buying seeds. Conducive policies and delivery systems have to exist. Subramaniam piloted the necessary reforms. To disseminate information Krishi Vigyan Kendras, model farms and district block development offices were put in place. Seed farms were developed. To augment research the Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR] was reorganised. As the dwarf variety was chemicals and fertiliser intensive new industrial units were licenced. To encourage two crops a year and monsoon-independence, irrigation canals and deep water wells were created. Policy was changed to assure guaranteed prices and markets. Food stock storages were created.
The results were not long to come. Land under active cultivation began to grow from 1.9 million hectares [mHa] in 1960 to 15.5mHa [1970], 43mHa [1980] and 64mHa [1990]. As for the Paddocks' prophesied demise of India in 1975 well, it didn't happen: India weighed in that year with over 110 million tonnes of food grains.
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Food grain production [mT]
50.8
82.0
108.4
129.6
176.4
201.8
Food grain import [mT]
4.8
10.4
7.5
0.8
0.3
-
Buffer stock [mT]
-
2.0
-
15.5
20.8
40.0
Population [m]
361
439
548
683
846
1000
It is also well to remember that India continued its own adaptive research on high yielding varieties [HYV]. The Revolution was not about just importing seeds. At the Indian Agricultural Research Institute [IARI], Benjamin Peary Pal developed the New Pusa 809, a hardy Indian wheat variety. A genial man who did his doctorate at Cambridge in 1933, B.P.Pal is easily the father of post-modern research in India's agriculture. He was a painter, a rose fancier and a patron of arts. He built a large team, groomed many scientists and extended the HYV research in crops other than wheat. Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR] of which he was the first Director General, proceeded to synthesise and broadcast many HYV seeds like Pusa Sonara, Malavika, Kalyan Sona. Many of these are popular today in Pakistan, other SAARC countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and Syria.
The success was not agriculture's alone. There were many spin-offs. Infrastructure improved. With increasing production India paid back all her loans on time; this increased its standing in the world. Vast employment opportunities opened up. Demand for consumer and industrial goods were triggered. Science-mindedness --and mechanics!-- sprouted everywhere. Amazed by the doughty farmers of Punjab and Haryana --the real real heroes of the Revolution-- Canada came wooing them to settle and farm its lands. Indians came to esteem themselves better. India had shaken off her colonial hang-over and defied the mould assigned for her.
The next road:
So let us say, "Long live the Revolution!" Why? Is it dying? No, but no Revolution is permanent. We began by observing that 'hope is always buried in tragedy'. Maybe strife in return arrives with success. The Green Revolution has thrown up its own set of problems. There has been a toll on soil fertility. The HYVs call for heavy dosages of chemicals -- fertilisers and pesticides. Prolonged use of these has depleted our soils and poisoned our environment. The once thrifty farmer has become a profligate user of power and water. Also because this form of agriculture is capital intensive, it is the farmer of means who most benefits from it. Therefore, while India's food problem may have been solved, not so the hunger problem of its poor. The profits of the Revolution have not spread evenly in society and the poor have little means to buy the huge stocks with the government. Worst of all yields are beginning to fall. We may have basked for too long in the glow of the Revolution.
So, India is at a cross-roads again. Which road is it to take. A tempting sign points to transgenic crops, also known as genetically modified [GM] crops. These are promoted as being the spear-heads of the next Green Revolution. They are said to need fewer inputs, display greater immunity to pests and yield high. But there are many sober voices that dispute these claims. Their views too are justified because in the past, multi-national companies have hastily jumped in to reap their profits with dubious products leaving the farmer to harvest sorrow. Objective scientific assessment of the claims made for GM crops is not yet complete. So the time may not be ripe yet to induct these promising technologies.
The more sensible road to take is the one to eco-sensitive farming. India needs to reevaluate proven, ancient ways of harmoniously maintaining soil fertility. Dependance on chemicals has to be minmised. Esteem for carefully selected native strains has to be encouraged if the small farmer is to be freed from malevolent seed companies. Conservation and optimal use of water is an important issue. Most of all, agricultural pricing and market policies need to be reviewed to favour the small farmer. There are signs of an emerging awareness all around. Many farmers in Kerala and Karnataka are turning to organic farming on a large scale. Most significantly Swaminathan, that star of the Green Revolution is today an advocate of 'sustainable agriculture'.
So let's put the Green Revolution in context again. It is undoubtedly a great Indian success story. But its unspoken mission may have been to give us a fresh breath with which to codify Indian farmers' traditional wisdom. Today technologies and Indian technologists are available -- as was not the case in the sixties-- to compile 'best practices' and disseminate them widely. It is in the nature of revolutions that they are never 'final solutions' but place-holders till the next one comes along.
Famine kingdom:
If the shame of the German Reich was the Holocaust, the British Empire --the Reich's great adversary-- matched it with the Bengal Famine. Both occurred around the same time and the scores were about even: 3 million dead in each. As a consequence of heartlessness and inept governance, the Great Famine of 1943-44 has no equal. Heavily taxed and left to themselves and the monsoons, India's farmers began the forties with falling, failing crops. The 'war effort' meant seizure of farm produce, banning of grain trade and turning the gaze away from the countryside. Result was, destitute folk began to arrive in Kolkata looking for food. Fearing that declaring an official famine would mandate supplying food diverted from its armed forces, the Empire simply let people die in the streets. And then within three years, with the war won, the British upped and left a traumatised, dismembered India.
The young nation was the object of much mockery world-wide. "Starving millions" was the phrase flung at it for an identity. Though the Indian farmer was back plying his heartache trade, shortages recurred. India was a massive importer, the tonnage peaking at 10 million in 1966. Humiliation was heaped upon it in a book : "Famine 1975" [Paddock and Paddock, 1965]. The authors predicted that by 1975 Indians would die in their millions. They suggested that the world turn its attention away from this hopeless land. Thomas Malthus probably concurred from his grave. Many nations of course helped, notably the USA with its massive PL-480 programme. The Indian government gamely coped with the times. It was a decade of much hardship and morale sapping pessimism.
The tide turns:
The story of how what came to be called the Green Revolution began is an exciting one. The story's moral is that hope is always buried within tragedy. Shortly after the Bengal Famine, MacArthur's victorious US army marched into Japan. In the huge occupation force was S. Cecil Salmon of the US Agricultural Research Service [ARS]. Many initiatives were being considered for rebuilding Japan. Salmon was focused on agriculture and that was how he chanced upon the legendary Norin strain of wheat that was to trigger the Revolution. Norin was a dwarf variety with little foliage and a heavy head of grain. Salmon sent this to the US for further study. In Washington State University at Pullman, a team under Orville Vogel researched the dwarf wheat. They bred many prototypes and finally created in 1959 the Gaines dwarf. It had been 13 long years of experimentation. Norman Borlaug --that icon of the Green Revolution-- picked up Gaines and crossed it with Mexico's best varieties at the International Maize and Wheat Research Centre there. He had the magic bullet -- he waited to unleash the Revolution.
By the 1960's India was desperate for a breakthrough. The nation's self-confidence was at an ebb. The Chinese had delivered a military lesson. Nehru was aging. Political uncertainty loomed. Food crises were endemic. Total food production hung around about 50 million tonnes. Marginal increases were only through bringing more land area under cultivation and not through increases in productivity. Food reserves were nil. India was just about meeting its deficit with imports. Clearly a quantum leap was needed.
It was then that India discovered Borlaug and the Norin dwarf. A small field at Pusa was seeded and the results were dramatic. It was what India had been waiting for. What then followed was a display of commitment and implementation that has stood to inspire India in many other fields. It is a milestone to cherish. Though the Green Revolution was a worldwide phenomenon its most successful revolutionaries were India's political leadership, bureaucrats, scientists and of course the farmers.
What it took:
Once Borlaug and India were convinced that they had a solution, the realisation of what needed to be done dawned. It was a formidable task. But India had its men in place. Of the ones that are easily named are C. Subramaniam, B. P. Pal and M.S.Swaminathan. In the end however, literally millions of Indians were active parts of the Revolution.
C. Subramaniam was in 1965, the Union Minister for Agriculture. He had trudged a long road, as a Gandhi devotee, freedom fighter and as a member of India's Constituent Assembly. Most of all he was a modern mind and a man of action. Swaminathan was an entirely home-grown plant genetist of repute. He emerged as Subramaniam's able lieutenant. In 1996, Subramaniam took the politically bold decision of importing 18,000 tonnes of the dwarf wheat seeds of the Lerma Rojo 64A and Sonora 64 variety.
The induction of an agricultural technology is not a mere question of buying seeds. Conducive policies and delivery systems have to exist. Subramaniam piloted the necessary reforms. To disseminate information Krishi Vigyan Kendras, model farms and district block development offices were put in place. Seed farms were developed. To augment research the Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR] was reorganised. As the dwarf variety was chemicals and fertiliser intensive new industrial units were licenced. To encourage two crops a year and monsoon-independence, irrigation canals and deep water wells were created. Policy was changed to assure guaranteed prices and markets. Food stock storages were created.
The results were not long to come. Land under active cultivation began to grow from 1.9 million hectares [mHa] in 1960 to 15.5mHa [1970], 43mHa [1980] and 64mHa [1990]. As for the Paddocks' prophesied demise of India in 1975 well, it didn't happen: India weighed in that year with over 110 million tonnes of food grains.
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Food grain production [mT]
50.8
82.0
108.4
129.6
176.4
201.8
Food grain import [mT]
4.8
10.4
7.5
0.8
0.3
-
Buffer stock [mT]
-
2.0
-
15.5
20.8
40.0
Population [m]
361
439
548
683
846
1000
It is also well to remember that India continued its own adaptive research on high yielding varieties [HYV]. The Revolution was not about just importing seeds. At the Indian Agricultural Research Institute [IARI], Benjamin Peary Pal developed the New Pusa 809, a hardy Indian wheat variety. A genial man who did his doctorate at Cambridge in 1933, B.P.Pal is easily the father of post-modern research in India's agriculture. He was a painter, a rose fancier and a patron of arts. He built a large team, groomed many scientists and extended the HYV research in crops other than wheat. Indian Council for Agricultural Research [ICAR] of which he was the first Director General, proceeded to synthesise and broadcast many HYV seeds like Pusa Sonara, Malavika, Kalyan Sona. Many of these are popular today in Pakistan, other SAARC countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and Syria.
The success was not agriculture's alone. There were many spin-offs. Infrastructure improved. With increasing production India paid back all her loans on time; this increased its standing in the world. Vast employment opportunities opened up. Demand for consumer and industrial goods were triggered. Science-mindedness --and mechanics!-- sprouted everywhere. Amazed by the doughty farmers of Punjab and Haryana --the real real heroes of the Revolution-- Canada came wooing them to settle and farm its lands. Indians came to esteem themselves better. India had shaken off her colonial hang-over and defied the mould assigned for her.
The next road:
So let us say, "Long live the Revolution!" Why? Is it dying? No, but no Revolution is permanent. We began by observing that 'hope is always buried in tragedy'. Maybe strife in return arrives with success. The Green Revolution has thrown up its own set of problems. There has been a toll on soil fertility. The HYVs call for heavy dosages of chemicals -- fertilisers and pesticides. Prolonged use of these has depleted our soils and poisoned our environment. The once thrifty farmer has become a profligate user of power and water. Also because this form of agriculture is capital intensive, it is the farmer of means who most benefits from it. Therefore, while India's food problem may have been solved, not so the hunger problem of its poor. The profits of the Revolution have not spread evenly in society and the poor have little means to buy the huge stocks with the government. Worst of all yields are beginning to fall. We may have basked for too long in the glow of the Revolution.
So, India is at a cross-roads again. Which road is it to take. A tempting sign points to transgenic crops, also known as genetically modified [GM] crops. These are promoted as being the spear-heads of the next Green Revolution. They are said to need fewer inputs, display greater immunity to pests and yield high. But there are many sober voices that dispute these claims. Their views too are justified because in the past, multi-national companies have hastily jumped in to reap their profits with dubious products leaving the farmer to harvest sorrow. Objective scientific assessment of the claims made for GM crops is not yet complete. So the time may not be ripe yet to induct these promising technologies.
The more sensible road to take is the one to eco-sensitive farming. India needs to reevaluate proven, ancient ways of harmoniously maintaining soil fertility. Dependance on chemicals has to be minmised. Esteem for carefully selected native strains has to be encouraged if the small farmer is to be freed from malevolent seed companies. Conservation and optimal use of water is an important issue. Most of all, agricultural pricing and market policies need to be reviewed to favour the small farmer. There are signs of an emerging awareness all around. Many farmers in Kerala and Karnataka are turning to organic farming on a large scale. Most significantly Swaminathan, that star of the Green Revolution is today an advocate of 'sustainable agriculture'.
So let's put the Green Revolution in context again. It is undoubtedly a great Indian success story. But its unspoken mission may have been to give us a fresh breath with which to codify Indian farmers' traditional wisdom. Today technologies and Indian technologists are available -- as was not the case in the sixties-- to compile 'best practices' and disseminate them widely. It is in the nature of revolutions that they are never 'final solutions' but place-holders till the next one comes along.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)