Social Development Plan – The Statesman
SIR, The Statesman must be appreciated for publishing ‘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 the broadcast, Green Revolution agriculture was heavily subsidized by the government, which was later abandoned, making farming an expensive and risky business. Not to mention the negative impacts on society and the environment. The Green Revolution fallacy is expressed by the following assertions at the end of the two-part article:
First, increased food production is not the panacea to the perennial problem of food scarcity, as evidenced by the huge stocks of wasted food grains in India while tens of millions of people go without, such as the pointed out Norman Borlaug ~ the father of the green revolution. Second, low production and productivity causing food scarcity leading to famine – the very logic in favor of the Green Revolution ~ was false according to the report of the Famine Commission (1880) and as argued by Amartya Sen.
Therefore, the problem was not “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 cause. reality of the food crisis to usher in a new era of agriculture. guided only by the spirit of “increasing production and productivity” which has been the foundation of agri-rural development ever since, as evidenced by the latest rhetoric ~ “Double Farmer Incomes by 2022”. Indeed, “a social development plan rather than an abundance strategy” is the need of the hour.
Farming is not as easy and low-skilled as R&D professionals perceive it to be. On the contrary, agriculture is a knowledge-intensive and skill-intensive activity that carries risks. Instead of imposing policies and programs on farmers in the name of development, there is a need to help farmers to have inputs at a reasonable price and to have their outputs at a remunerative price.