SIR, The Statesman is to be appreciated for having published ‘Green Revolution-I & II’ (August 20 & 21) by Jaydev Jana, who did a fair analysis of the pros and cons of the Green Revolution. Initially, at the time of broadcast, Green Revolution farming was heavily subsidized by the government which was later shut down, making farming an expensive and risky business. This is apart from the negative impacts on society and the environment. The fallacy of the Green Revolution is expressed by the following assertions at the end of the two-part article:
Firstly, increasing food production is not a panacea to the perennial problem of food shortage as evidenced by the huge stocks of wasted food grains in India when tens of millions are deprived as Norman Borlaug pointed out. ~ the father of the green revolution. Second, low production and productivity causing food shortage leading to famine – the very logic in favor of the Green Revolution – was wrong according to the Famine Commission report (1880) and as argued by Amartya Sen.
Therefore, the problem was not a “food shortage” due to “low production and productivity” as believed and popularized by the vanguards of the green revolution who failed to recognize and rectify the real cause. of the food crisis to usher in a new era of agriculture. driven only by the spirit of “increasing production and productivity” that has been the foundation of agro-rural development since then, as evidenced by the latest rhetoric ~ “Double farmers’ income by 2022”. Indeed, “a social development plan rather than an abundance strategy” is the need of the moment.
Agriculture is not as easy and unskilled an activity as R&D professionals perceive it to be. Rather, farming is a knowledge- and skill-intensive activity that carries risks. Instead of imposing policies and programs on farmers in the name of development, it is necessary to help farmers to obtain inputs at a reasonable price and to dispose of their products at a remunerative price.

Source link