Importance of India’s Agricultural Economy to Its Development Essay Example

from 1951-66, benefiting from foreign aid and producing modest results. Land reforms were also attempted, but only partial distribution occurred due to the influence of landowners, leaving the landless quarter of rural Indian households unaffected. In 1954 and 1959, joint Indo-American teams were appointed to address agricultural education, research, and extension issues, while a third review team in 1963 included agricultural scientists from the UK, USA, and India with the specific objective of examining and suggesting suitable changes to the existing agricultural research infrastructure in India.

In 1965, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) was transformed into a central agency that aims to coordinate, direct, and promote agricultural research and education in India following the recommendations of the Third Review Team. The ICAR underwent another reorganization in 1973 which resulted in further changes to the organizational structure to provide more autonomy and flexibility in management and recruitment. These careful analyses led to Indian self-sufficiency in food which benefited Indian agriculture. With approximately 27,000 scientists making up the agricultural research system in India, it may possibly be considered as the largest research system worldwide.

The ICAR is a vast network of institutions and centers, including 46 institutions, 20 national research centers, nine project directorates, four bureaus, the National Academy of Agricultural Research Management (NAARM), and 26 agricultural universities. Its mission is to advance agriculture and animal husbandry research and education through coordination, promotion, aid, and clearance house functions, including research and reference library establishment, technology transfer programs, and consultancy services. With India's population, land size, and majority of its people being farmers, ICAR has been crucial in disseminating knowledge on agriculture and farming. The green revolution

experimental strategy has played a significant role in ICAR's contribution to the development of India's agriculture sector.

India experienced the green revolution following a halt in its economic growth in 1965 which was caused by various factors including the great drought, Pakistani attack in September 1965, and weak political leadership following Nehru's death. When Indira Gandhi came to power, she was faced with the second year of the great drought and succumbed to the pressure of the World Bank to devalue the rupee which further exacerbated the trend of rising prices.

13 The green revolution played a significant role in the recovery of Indian agriculture by mandating the use of "improved seed, irrigation, and heavy use of chemical fertilizer." However, it also had drawbacks - it was expensive, "vulnerable to increase in the cost of petroleum, needed to make fertilizer," and was not suitable for areas with inadequate water supplies.

14 In contrast to the pre-revolutionary period, where the increase in agricultural production was achieved through expanding cultivated farmlands, the green revolution focused on increasing yield. This new approach prompted India's government to realize that reform was needed to bring the country towards self-sufficiency in food. Rather than increasing farmland, they implemented strategies to enhance yields. As a result, Indian agriculture experienced significant changes and the economy was greatly influenced by the green revolution.

With the implementation of a permanent irrigation system during the green revolution, crops in India became less reliant on monsoon rains than before. The green revolution was initially introduced as an experimental solution following a two-year drought in 1965, and it proved to be effective in stabilizing India's crop season. This initiative

resulted in increased yield production for rice and grain, with rice output increasing by 42% and grain production by 61% between 1975 and 1990. Although credited with saving India's agricultural economy and putting the country on a development trajectory, there were also several drawbacks to this program which aimed to achieve self-sufficiency in food through significantly increasing food production.

The green revolution did not equally impact all areas of India. While the Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh saw significant profits from wheat cultivation, Eastern India experienced little to no change. The northern and western regions benefited the most, leading to polarization between large and small-scale producers at the local level. This created noticeable regional differences between capitalists and semi-subsistence based agriculture. Despite previous attempts by Congress governments to implement land reforms, urban elite alliances with landed interests made it unsuccessful. Consequently, a divide emerged between regions dominated by large peasant farmers versus those controlled by landlords.

The rapid adoption of market-oriented production and the resulting profits from the green revolution led to further consolidation of land in the hands of large farmers. While this benefited them greatly, it left small farmers with small plots and meager profits still trapped in poverty. The high cost of the green revolution also exacerbated this inequality as many farmers were unable to afford the expensive water and fertilizer required to increase yields. As a result, rural inequality widened and created disparate trends in the politicization of 'bullock capitalists' who could afford the new techniques, and poor peasants who could not. Despite providing India with self-sufficiency in food production, poverty continued to plague one-third of the population in 1978, and modern

farming methods remained out of reach for most farmers. Ultimately, while successful in achieving food security, the green revolution also contributed to an increasingly skewed distribution of rural income.

The green revolution created a significant wealth and power shift for the benefiting farmers. They were able to lobby and secure massive subsidies, including seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides at both state and national levels in India. Additionally, they received irrigation and free electricity in some states. While these measures helped peasants and landless individuals, they also favored the growth of agribusinesses, which forced out smaller, semi-subsistence units. The Punjab region exemplifies this shift to capitalist agriculture, where agricultural profits have led to higher standards of living, impressive residences, and consumer durables. Local farmers and traders have also invested in cold storage plants to take advantage of price fluctuations and set up factories and shops.

The Punjab relies on the importation of indigent labor from other regions of India for seasonal, economical work. Wealthy farmers in modern times have attained their status as a result of investing in appropriate crops and the green revolution, thus pushing out smaller, family-owned farms and exploiting measures meant to help the peasant and landless classes. Becoming a powerful political and economic force in India, these affluent farmers have aggravated the gap between rural classes and further hindered small farmers from making a living amidst the development spurred by the green revolution.

Despite its undeniable impact on India's agricultural economy and its role in bringing the country closer to development, the green revolution has not fully achieved its goal of eradicating poverty. India has long aimed to become a developed nation, but this cannot

happen without addressing poverty. Providing more money to those who have none is the most effective solution. Unfortunately, the green revolution's benefits have largely favored select farmers in specific areas, leaving others in poverty and some still hungry despite increased food production.

An increase in food production does not necessarily mean a decrease in hunger because money is still needed to buy food, regardless of how much is produced. The two decades of major green revolution advances between 1970 and 1990 saw a drop in the number of hungry people worldwide from 942 million to 786 million, which is a sixteen percent decline and indicates progress. However, if we exclude China from the analysis, we can observe that “the number of hungry people in the rest of the world actually increased by more than 11% from 536 to 597 million.” Nonetheless, the significant disparity was seen in China where the number of hungry individuals decreased from 406 million to 189 million owing to the “Chinese revolution where broad-based changes in access to land paved the way for rising living standards."

It is more expensive for the impoverished individuals and they receive less than others. These farmers, who are poor, cannot purchase inputs such as fertilizer in large quantities while larger farmers can obtain discounts for doing so. The less affluent farmers are unable to wait for the best value for their crops whereas wealthier farmers can because they are not in dire circumstances. In numerous places worldwide, getting a sufficient water supply is a significant obstacle to succeeding in farming and poorer farmers typically cannot afford to install irrigation.

The distribution of irrigation benefits depends

on the type of system used. Canal irrigation benefit those who are located closer to its upper part. Meanwhile, tubewells, advocated by development organizations, favor larger operators who are able to invest more initially and are subject to lower costs per unit. Credit plays a crucial role, as small farmers tend to rely on local private lenders and incur interest rates several times higher than those paid by wealthier farmers.

Big farmers have been the primary beneficiaries of government-subsidized credit, leaving little opportunity for the poor to access these subsidies and other government benefits. As a result, the green revolution in India has largely favored wealthy farmers, exacerbating rural inequality. However, with 67% of India's labor force employed in agriculture and this sector contributing 25% to the country's GDP, utilizing this significant statistic is crucial for achieving developed nation status.

To have a broad impact on India, any major alterations in its agricultural industry must be watched closely by the government. It is crucial to regulate the conduct of affluent farmers who take advantage of subsidies that are meant for small farmers, peasants, and landless individuals. To encourage overall development in the country, limitations should be imposed on wealthy farmers while financial assistance should be amplified for small farmers. As small-scale cultivators make up more of the populace, giving them extra disposable income will enhance domestic consumption and result in GDP growth.

India could experience an improvement in living standards, a decrease in poverty, and a growth rate boost if it successfully transforms its significant amount of small farmers into a consumer economy, much like China experienced through its own revolution. (Source: Carter Findley and John Rothney's Twentieth

Century World, Boston New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002; Jobs.net Copyright 2001, accessed April 18, 2004, http://www.jobs.net/locations/in/economy.)

The text includes and their contents about two sources. The first source is a book titled "India's Development and Public Policy" by Stuart S. Nagel, published in 2000 by Ashgate in Aldershot Burlington Singapore Sydney. The second source is an article titled "Lessons from the Green Revolution" published in the March/April 2000 issue of Tikkun Magazine, written by Rosset Peter Collins Joseph Lappe Frances Moore. The article can be found at http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html.

The University Press of America published P. Prabhakaran's The Historical Origin of India's Underdevelopment: A World System Perspective in 1990. Dietmar Rothermund's An Economic History of India: From Pre Colonial Times to 1991 was released by Routledge in the same year. Pamela Shurmer-Smith's India: Globalization and Change was published by Arnold in 2000.