This article presents a rather skeptical view of the role that organic farming can play as a solution to Indias food problem. There is no doubt organic farming holds certain promises, but it can hardly contribute to mitigating starvation in a milieu characterized by a huge population which is still growing. The upshot of the analysis here is that biotechnology may score over organic farming as a possible prescription towards ensuring food security now and in the future. It is argued that while both biotechnology and organic farming can effect marked improvements in the quality of food, the former holds a greater promise in bringing about a sustainable increase in physical yields at a lower cost than the latter. In
order to understand the advantages of organic farming better, it is first necessary
to know the history of India's agricultural developments since mid-1960s. Prior
to that, primitive practices characterized by extensive agriculture were in vogue,
with production being essentially subsistence-oriented. Attempts to increase agricultural
yield were based on intensive use of labor and other home produced inputs. Though
the practices involved little paid-out costs, were ecologically-friendly and did
not deplete soil fertility, they did not help in generating enough yield per unit
of land to feed the masses. It was only after the Green Revolution that inorganic
fertilizers, pesticides and high-yielding varieties of seeds were introduced.
The seed-fertilizer technology (Green Revolution) brought about a revolutionary
spurt in agricultural production and productivity, albeit in regions endowed with
irrigation facilities. This technology has thus saved the country from the ignominy
of having to trade sovereignty for food. It has resulted in a phenomenal increase
in yields per hectare. Between 1960 and 2000, based on FAO data for all developing
countries, wheat yields rose by 208%, rice yields by 109% and maize yields by
157%. The increased supplies of food were not only high enough to keep the real
food prices in check; but they may also have contributed to a fall in the prices.
However,
the Green Revolution had its share of shortcomings. The technology was neutral
to scale, but the inputs embodying the technology were not accessible in required
quantity to all farmers alikein short, the access to resources was not scale-neutral.
The gains were, thus, unevenly distributed in any given region, with marginal
and small farmers benefitting much less than large farmers. Displacement of labor
associated with mechanization of agricultural operations (necessitated by the
need to perform them quickly) also meant that the hired labor secured no big gains
from the Green Revolution. |
