Chapter VIII

PARADIGM SHIFTS IN TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN THE TRADITIONAL, GREEN REVOLUTION AND POST-GREEN REVOLUTION

PHASES OF AGRICULTURE - AN OVERVIEW

The categorisation of technology phases in agriculture into

traditional, Green revolution and post-Green Revolution is based on well

defined characteristics. 'The process of technology development and

transfer, the priorities, the agents involved demarcate the phases as

discussed in the preceding chapters. This chapter seeks to have an overview

of all the three phases by summing up the institutional mechanism, the

process of technology development and the protagonists 1 agents involved

in the process in each of'the regime1.

The chapter is divided into three sections, of which the first makes an

analysis of the process of technology development in the traditional

agriculture. The process of technology development in the Green

Revolution phase is analysed in the second. An analysis of the transitional - participatory pattern and the evolving sustainable, farmer-scientist

participatory pattern of technology development and transfer systems that

characterise the post- Green Revolution phase is attempted in the third.

Pattern of Technology Development and Transfer in the Traditional

Phase

In the traditional phase, the farming community or society played an

important role in the production of indigenous knowledge respecting the -.

I The failures in farming are argued to be neither because of the faults of the farmer or that of the farm but because of the technology; and the faults of the technology are traced lo the priorities and processes which generate i t [Chambers, et,al, 19911.

local environmental, religious, social, and cultural values. Each farmer

depending on his ingenuity and creativity added to or improved the stock of

knowledge. The farmer might be an owner cultivator, tenant cultivator or

even a farm labourer. It was in his capacity as the actual tiller that he

contributed to the process of technology development. The farmer as the

agent of technology development drew much from the society. He inherited

a strong sense of values in and through the society. In his efforts as the

agent of technology development he was guided, tuned or limited by the

above values.

Development of technology in traditional agriculture followed a

particular pattern. It was a cultivatorlsociety-driven one. It followed a path

of trial and error. Countless efforts of primitive producers to advance

agricultural technology contributed to the stock of farm know-how. These

efforts to enlarge the reproduction process under the growing scarcity of

natural resources seem to have been induced by the producers' need for

sustenance [Hayami, 1997:12]. The priority of the farmer was his

sustenance and of his family. Whatever surplus left over after subsistence,

he exchanged it with the members in the local community.

Cultivators, the early innovators in agriculture, seldom recorded their

accomplishments in writing, rarely wrote papers on their discoveries and

did not attach their names and patents to their inventions. The technological

progress attained in traditional farming communities, was not attributed to

any individual cultivator but to the whole society or time. As a result, the

history of agriculture is written without any reference to the main

innovators in the long-term process of technological change [Rhoades,

1989: 412.

2 Braidwood d~scusses the 'atmosphere o f experimentation', which characterized the Neolithic farmer since the earliest stages o f agriculture. Farmers selected and domesticated all the major and minor food crops on which human kind survives today. Early cultivators knew, about the characteristics, food value and medicinal uses of over 1,500 plant species. Over 500 vegetables were cultivated in ancient times [Braidwood 19671

Agriculture did not originate in just one or two centres. The best

evidence on early domestication shows that experimentation with all the

important semi-wild crops was occurring simultaneously in different areas

of Asia, Africa, Europe and Americas [Reed, 19771. Later many types of

hand-tool and ultimately the plough were developed. As Johnson

[1972:156] has argued, variation and experimentation are the 'basic stuff of

which adaptation and evolutionary changes are made'.

Farmers had been dedicated plant and animal breeders for thousands

of years, although not in the precise manner of modem genetics. They have

consciously maintained diversity, planted mixed fields systematically to

achieve natural crosses, practiced selection and set up their own personal

gene banks as well as far-flung exchange systems for acquiring new genetic

material.

Innovative farmers are fanatic seekers of new varieties and once a

new variety is obtained, they begin by planting a few in a kitchen garden or

a single short row along the boundary of a field and observe. If the variety

proves itself, farmers amplify their production, subject to the availability of

seeds, by putting more and more land in this variety. The rice plant was

"improved", not in a matter of years using modem breeding practices, but

over centuries through selection by cultivators [Barker, et al, 1985:2].

In the process of seed preservation experiment, farmers were the

traditional breeders. Millions of peasants and farmers participated over

thousands of years in the development and maintenance of genetic

diversity. The traditional breeders, namely the farmers were the custodians

of the planet's genetic wealth who treated seed as sacred, and as the critical

element in the great chain of being. Therefore, seed was not bought and

sold, it was exchanged as a free gift of nature. Even in years of scarcity,

seed was conserved in every household, so that the cycle of food production

was not interrupted by loss of seeds [Shiva, 1996:64].

The knowledge and experience acquired through risky farm

experiments by the farmers were stepping stones for further development in

technology by them and by others. For instance, the 'miracle seeds' of

Green Revolution from the international research institutes benefited out of

the rich genetic diversity maintained and improved by rural farmer folk3. 0

The Case of Kuttanad

In all the farming operations, in traditional agriculture4 from bunding

and de-watering to harvesting, the practices followed, the tools or

equipment used were developed by the farming community. Each farmer

represented the farming community and in him the society, was present. He

acted for the society and in that process he was assisted by the local artisans

like carpenters and blacksmiths. He added to the intangible stock of

knowledge or its tangible forms in the society.

Farm tools that suit the varying topography, climate and type of the-

soil have been very basic to any farming system. Farmers fabricated a

variety of tools or implements. The wooden plough tipped with iron, the

simple harrows like palli and palaka (leveling boards), different types of

spades, baskets made from bamboo and screw-pine and the ancient sickle

were the important indigenous tools employed in rice cultivation in

Kuttanad.

' Swaminathan, one of the champions o f Green Revolution stated that much o f the genetic material used in breeding was the product o f the informal innovation systems o f rural women and men practiced over the centuries [Swaminathan, 1993:165].

The main source o f ~nformation for this section is our interactions with a number o f senior farmers and farm labourers in Kuttanad during 2001-03, and

They varied with the locality and the diversity in tools for the same

purpose attests the creativity and adaptability of the local farmers. For

instance, the diversity we find in a simple tool namely leveling board

@alaka) proves the above argument. Their shape, make and name varied

with places across eral la'.

In the Kuttanad region itself, the leveling board was variously known

as palaka, njavari and adimaram6. Adaptation was made in the shape and

nature of the leveling board by the Kuttanad farmer with the help of the

local artisans. It was made of teak or venga (a local timber tree). Similarly

plough (kalappa) also varied in size and shape depending on the type of the

soil, its water content and hardness.

The farmers possessed clear knowledge about the selection of wood,

its processing, shape and size. There were hundred various types of plough

in Kerala [Sujithkumar, 1999:158]. Behind each type of plough, we find the

creativity of the traditional farming community in adapting a tool to the

locality7.

We find this diversity also in the case of spades. The thoomba or

mammatti used to turn the surface soil had a typical variant in Kuttana.d. It

was curved towards the handle and was called kulamthondi thoompa. In its

operation the worker had to bend towards the ground. For the reclamation

work he fabricated a different tool called kattappara with a long handle

' They were known in different names such as maram (in present day Thimvananthapuram and Kollam districts), adimaram (in Pathanarnthltta district), njavari (in Kottayam and Emakulam), palaka (in Alappuzha), oorcha, kolumararn, nirothumaram, muzhachi (in Palakkad), aorchamaram (in Malappuram), vallicheruppu, cherippupalaka (in Kozhikkodu), lhava (in Wyanad), eerchapalaka (in Kannoor), and koriplako (in Kasargod district) [Sujithkumar, 1999:161-1671.

An information collected from the farmers and ploughmen in Kuttanad, by cross-checking the ~nformation they shared durlng our interaction with them during the month of April 2003 ' Our interaction with Mr. Balanpilla, Palamoottil, Vadakkekara, Kuttanad, formerly a ploughman, on 2304.2003

tipped with an iron plate in almost rectangular shape. It was used to cut the

soil in deeper layers.

For harvesting, the sickles used was very light, too curved and sharp

edged, made by the local blacksmiths. Women farm workers insisted on

certain specifications of this simple tool which they considered increased its

efficiency and they gave feedback to the blacksmiths who could improve

and adapt the tool9. All other tools and implements except sickle were

provided by the cultivator. There was a good collection of various

implements with the farmer.

There was a collection of simple instruments like kotta (measuring

baskets), vitheti (board used to heap grain) and brooms. In making the

measuring units like para, edangazhi, nazhi,1° farmers sought the help of

the local artisans. Measuring baskets of various denominations like orupara

(one measure), irupara (two measures) muppara (three measures) were

made by the members of the paraya community (low caste), specialists in

weaving baskets.

Wages, especially for harvesting, were defined and paid in these

measuring units. One para of paddy weighed almost 6 k. gm. of paddy. It

was always handled with respect. As a proof it was not taken from one

place to another by keeping its mouth opened, instead people cover its

mouth with a piece of cloth".

8 It was so identified with the farni workers that this tool forms pad of the election symbol of certain golitical parties like CPI and CPI (M), which claim to enjoy greater support from the farm labourers.

Bhadra, a women labourer from Kavalam shared this information to us in an interaction. On 25.04.2003 " All Malayalam measures. Nazhi in metric terms is equal to almost 300 grams. Four nazhi make an edangazhi and eight idangazhi make apara. There were different types ofpara like koolopara, standard para and ambakkadanpara depending on its volume. " Our interaction with Sri. Krishnan Nair,, Padinjatlumukam, Valady, Kultanad and a group of farmers from that village. on 12-01-2003.

The de-watering system in Kuttanad had proved its merit by itself.

The central equipment in the system called jalachackram (water wheel)

was made locally. It varied in its size by changing its diameter and the

number of the spokes or Leaves. They in turn, depended on the depth of the

area, the volume of water to be bailed out etc. The number of spokes varied

between 4 and 32. The number of persons required to operate or turn the

wheel depended on the size of the wheel. The size varied with changes in

the scale of operation. For instance in kayal area, which involved a

difference in scale required the use of big water wheels compared to areas

in the Upper Kuttanad. Wheels were made of teak or aanjili wood.

There were specially skilled carpenters and blacksmiths in Kuttanad

to make the water wheel suited to the Kuttanad paddy fields and water

levels. During off season farmers applied fish oil on the chackram and

farmers said that would keep the leaves water proof during its use. They

used castor oil and gingelly oil and lubricants on the axial for the smooth

turning of the water whee1l2.

Water wheel was a significant improvement of the then existing de-

watering implements like kayattukuttaor ihekkukutta, vethu, thulan and

thoni. The Kuttanad farmer developed and followed a well knit system for

internal drainage in the fields to facilitate the de-watering process. A series

of vachals and kachals served central to the drainage system (chal means

track for drainage). They drain water to the water wheel base called

chackrachal or parakuzhi which would be drained out by the chackram or

the engine. All these tracks were made by hands with the assistance of

simple tools.

I 2 Our interacl~on with Sri. Vasudevar~n Nair, Kunnurnrna, Kavalam,, Kuttanad

The engineering skill the farmers and labourers in Kuttanad

possessed was quite appreciable. The outerbund was built so strong that it

could withstand the high pressure of water in the river or in the kayal from

entering the paddy field. Breaches of the outer bund was not common. But

during times of heavy rain and flood, when breaches occur, farmers and

labourers who keep vigil, would rush to the spot and rebuild the bund on the

broken part on a war-footing. Thus they blocked the heavy rush of water

and avoided a heavy loss of the crop. They used bamboo mat (panampu),

thatched coconut leaves (chetta), branches of trees and clay in the task

(farm information).

The partial mechanisation of the de-watering process in 1912, in

Kuttanad enabled the farmers to change the scale of operation. The

ingenuity of the local farmers and the artisans in Kuttanad rose to the

occasion when few engines were brought from Great Britain. They

fabricated a new system petty and para to complement the engine in de-

watering.

Petty and para is a unique locally developed axial pump made of

wood and iron with local expertise. It is an efficient pump with low suction

head with high discharge capacity made by local blacksmiths and

carpenters. It has been so completed that even when the steam and fuel

engine component of the pump was later replaced by the electric motors, the

petty andpara component of the pump has not yet been replaced.

The innovative ability of the Kuttanad entrepreneurial farmer was

better proved by the extent of kayal reclamation. He used crude indigenous

implements and locally available materials in the task. It was, in a way an

intensification of the bunding and de-watering exercises he had been

practicing. As mentioned earlier, in Chapter V, the Kuttanad farming

community had reclaimed 20,000 acres of land in the kayal area.

The traditional farming community followed a perfect system of seed

selection, preservation and its preparation for sowing. They selected the

best grain from the harvest as seed for the next crop. In the chaffing process

they take the grain from the front portion of the heap. A senior farmer from

Kuttanad, Mathew Kallukalam, Vazhappally said that in the order of

collecting, the farmers first took the grain for seed, followed by the grain

for food, then for rent and lastly if anything left they took it to the local

market for sale. The grain thus taken go through a systematic process of

drying for preservation. The community possessed an integrated knowledge

about the preparation of seed for sowing. First they soak it for a few days

and then permit the seed to sprout and then take it to field for sowing. There

were specialised labourers who possessed the skill for sowing. The farmers

observed some religious and cultural values in the process of seed

collection, preservation and preparation.

Kuttanad farmers followed an environment friendly, sustainable

system of manuring. The basic orientation of the farmer was to allow the

field to regain its fertility by itself. Fallowing was very integral to the

traditional farming system. Through fallowing the farmers could take the

benefit of the silt deposited in them by fresh waters from time to time. Cow

dung, wood ash and green manure constituted the dominant items of plant

nutrients. They possessed a working knowledge about the nutrient content

of various leaves and plants'3.

The plant protection methods developed in traditional Kuttanad were

fully eco-friendly. Farmers used the manual method of pest control like

puzhukkotta (pest basket) and choolu (broom). They also used organic

materials like neemcake and kerosene to control the pest population.

" Our interact~on with a group of farmers, who came for the meeting of apadasheknram committee, in the Neelampel~oor, Krishi Bhavan on 3-2-2003.

20 1

Moreover, the farmer as a nature-friendly innovator was fully aware of the

natural control system in the field. There were the natural enemies of pests

like spiders, frogs etc., which helped the farmers in controlling the pests.

The use of organic manure did not affect the population of the natural

enemies which resulted in a natural balancing of the population of pests and

their natural enemies.

In all the farming operations they tried to follow the best time for the

operation. The Kerala community inherited the wisdom of njattuvela as

detailed in the third chapter.

Thus in all the farming operations the farmers inherited a stock of

knowledge from their forefathers, and depending on their creativity and

ingenuity, added to the that stock, giving a flow character to the knowledge.

In his traditional role as the chief agent / actor of agricultural technology

development, the traditibnal or the farming community made significant

contribution to the farming system.

Regarding the priorities in technology development in traditional

agriculture, it was the farmers who set them. Traditional agriculture was

dominated by an attitude, which emphasized survival and maintenance of

position rather than improvement and advancement of position. They

followed farming for sustenance. They sought such a technology to suit the

environment.

Exploitation of nature and commercialization of production were not

the priorities of traditional farming. The farmers wanted to be friendly with

the nature and did not want to disturb the harmony of men with nature.

They developed the technology in such a way as to suit the particular

environment, in contrary to the pattern of developing a system to make the

environment to suit a particular technology. For instance, the farming

system that they developed respected the rhythm in the nature. The centre of

njattuvela was that rhythm. They planned the timing of the operations and

the type of crops to be raised according to the set annual pattern of

variations in the nature. They set the priorities respecting the limits

predetermined by the environment.

Transfer of Technology in Traditional Agriculture

In our study, development of technology and its diffusion or

transfer14 of technology are taken as the two aspects of the same reality. The

pattern of technology development, to a greater extent determines the nature

of technology transfer. Therefore in a study of development of technology,

it is imperative to make a reference on the pattern of transfer. A detailed

analysis of the transfer process, its dynamism etc. are beyond the scope of

the present study.

As mentioned earlier, the core of traditional agricultural technology

counted of the indigenous knowledge of a society developed over centuries.

Each generation took care of the transmission of this know-how to the

coming generations. The whole family including children were linked to the

farm and the work. The family was centred around the farm and the farming

operations.

During personal interview with senior and aged farmers and farm

labourers, they explained the internal dynamism of the diffusion of

knowledge in the traditional phase of agriculture. Children did hear and

see the involvement of parents, either as farmers or as labourers, in the

farming operations. From childhood onwards they were introduced to the

farming operations. Thus i t was a generation -to - generation transfer.

I 4 The word 'transfer' is more appropriate to the Green Revolution system. In the traditional stage of technology, i t only means spread of a piece of knowledge among cultivators

203

Informal rural gatherings and religious rituals also facilitated this

transfer. In the villages, in the later years, the rural 'tea shop audience'

served a platform for the innovative farmers to share their experiences. The

traditional pattern of diffusion was a farmer- to- farmer and a labourer-to -

labourer approach. There was also a farmer-to- labourer and a labourer- to-

farmer approach.

Traditionally the country teashops witnessed free discussion of

farming experience, sharing and evaluation of agricultural practices.

Barring exaggerations, it was a pooling up of farm experiences through free

mingling of farmers and farm workers. The modem workers and seminars

envy upon this conventional room for disc~ssion'~.

The above discussion on the pattern of technology development and

transfer in traditional agriculture is summarised in Exhibit 8.1.

Exhibit: 8.1 : Location-specific Cultivator I Society- driven Technology Development and Transfer System in Traditional Agriculture

, 5 Adrian C Mayer, a social anthropologist speaks of a similar relevance of these teashop interaction of social change. He who made research on Malabar in the 1950s says that the teashop played a significant role in subverting inter-dining caste taboos. This is because of the congregational urge of the farmers, E P Unny, The Hindu Weekly Edition. June 17, 2001:l.

The basic orientation of this pattern of technology development is

that there exists sincere interactive relationship between individuals and the

society, shown by the directional arrows. Each individual as a cultivator

and as a traditional innovator receives various environmental, cultural,

religious and social values in and through the society. His entire life style is

based on theses values and he respects them.

When he looks out for new ways of doing things his basic orientation

to these values does not change. Though his innovative efforts are marginal,

he is one of the links in the chain of technology development and its intra

and inter-generation of transfer. He contributes to the stock of knowledge of

the farming community, shown by the arrows from the cultivator to the

society. The technology developed and transferred in a society is embedded

in its environmental, cultural, religious and social values which makes the

process purely an endogenous one.

To sum up, in the development of technology in traditional farming,

the cultivator acted as the chief agent 1 player. Farm and the homestead

were the fields of his experiments. However, he was controlled andlor

tuned by the particular social, religious, cultural factors and the

environmental in which he lived. The Green Revolution strategy of

technology development, however, makes a radical change in the agents

and priorities and had its consequences.

The Pattern of Technology Development and Transfer in the Green

Revolution Phase

The orientation and the organisational pattern and the process of

technology development in the Green Revolution phase was altogether

different from those prevailed in the traditional system. There took place a

paradigm shift in the agents lactors, forces and the priorities of technology

development.

The Green Revolution technology, as explained, was developed

against the background of severe food scarcities and famines. The third-

world countries imported and adopted the 'package' for addressing the

problem of food deficit. But the process of adoption did not change the

basic orientation of the imported technology. Everything was orientated

towards increasing output. Projects aimed at immediate expansion of

production took high priority. Thus a technology which was highly

responsive to inputs stood at the centre of the Green Revolution strategy.

Hence, the 'miracle seeds' or the High Yielding Varieties became the

hallmark of the new technology. Research has been central to the pattern of

technology development in this phase.

Technology development or research at any time has been value oriented.

The nature of the process and the technology developed varied with these

values. The Indian scientists, before the advent of the Green Revolution

strategy, worked for self reliant and ecological alternatives in production.

Their approach in research was based on indigenous roots [Jha, 2001:2].

But the government was persuaded to adopt the Green Revolution strategy

based on a different vision, due to economic and political reasons.

The values that guided technology development in traditional

agriculture, namely, environmental, social, religious and cultural, were

replaced by new values like productivity, production, market and economic

prosperity. The basis of the vision was a strategy not in harmony with the

nature, but on its conquest. Materials and experts from America were used

to shift India's agricultural research system and agricultural policy from an

indigenous and ecological base to an exogenous and high input-using

system.

Increased production through increased productivity has been

highlighted as the priority of technology development. The orientation has

been to develop a technology to intensify the exploitation of the agricultural

base in developing countries. Such a technology warranted increased

amounts of non-renewable resources drawn from outside the agricultural '

sector, e.g. inorganic fertilizer.

The scientists, supported by the political decision and funding

offered a technological solution to scarcity and poverty. They developed a

technology to enable the farming community to tide over the food crisis.

The scientist assumed the chief role as the agent 1 actor of technology

development. His sole priority has been to increase production and

productivity.

Thus technology has become an exogenous variable, an outsider.

Technology to be followed in a locality came to be developed outside the

system .The traditional role of the farmer and his community in the origin

and development of a system of production came to be totally ignored.

Researchers and technologists in institutionalized organisations developed

the technology that they perceived to be important and eventually

transferred them to farmers through extension personnel.

This approach totally disregarded the traditional role of farmers in

moulding agricultural technology and bypassed the traditional knowledge

base of the farming communities. The farmer has become a technology

taker than a maker. It has come to be totally a 'top down' approach. The

scientists developed and prescribed a 'blanket technology'. The location

specificity of technology application suffered in the process. It has been

assumed that the success of the farmer depended solely on the extent and

the sincerity he maintained in adoption. For poor performance, if any, the

farmer came to be blamed for his low rate of adoption.

Peasants as plant breeding specialists gave way to scientists of

multinational seed companies and international research institutions like

CIMMYT and IRRI, national and regional research stations. For 10,000

years, farmers and peasants had produced their own seeds, on their own

land, selecting the best seeds, storing them, replanting them, and letting

nature take its course in the renewal and enrichment of life. With the Green

Revolution, peasants were no longer to be custodians of the common

genetic heritage through the storage and preservation of grain. The 'miracle

seeds' of the Green Revolution transformed this genetic heritage into

private property, protected by patents and intellectual property rights. The

Green Revolution changed the 10,000 -year evolutionary history of crops

by changing the fundamental nature and meaning of 'seeds'.

The upper hand the scientists enjoyed in seed breeding extended to

the farming systems. The shift from indigenous varieties of seeds to the

Green Revolution varieties involved a shift to a farming system controlled

by agro-chemical and seed corporations, and international agricultural

research centres. In the Green Revolution technology development process

scientists took the full effort and credit as they performed as the chief agents

or actors in the process.

In the mid -sixties when a new agricultural strategy was enunciated,

assigning a central role to research and technology a reorganised ICAR

(Indian Council of Agricultural Research, formerly Imperial Council of

Agricultural Research) assumed charge of all agricultural research

supported by the Central Government. The Council played a major role in

reinvigorating the state system as well through direct and substantial

support to the newly established State Agricultural Universities (SAU). The

All India Coordinated Research Projects (AICRP) was another ICAR

initiative, which brought the state system in the mainstream. In the 1990s,

the national agricultural research net work consisted of 97 ICAR units, 3 1

SAUs, 98 AICRPs, and 313 research stations, 120 zonal research stations

and 200 sub stations [Jha, 2001:5]. During this period private investments

began to appear in this period significantly. Thus at the dawn of the

millennium, India had one of the largest public agricultural research system

spread over all environments and having a diverse agenda.

In the State, The Kerala Agricultural University (K A U) took the

leadership in research16. It has a well knitted system of Regional

Agricultural Research Stations(R A R Ss) and local Research Stations(R Ss)

helped by a parallel but cooperative system of research stations run by the

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The research system

develops and releases various HYVs and also makes research on the

farming system to suit the new varieties.

The University has been publishing a reference document on the

agricultural technology developments and the package of practices to be

followed, from 1973 onwards17. This document has been evolved out of the

periodical discussions held at the State level workshops organised by the

University. It has been assisted by the Department of Agriculture, ICAR

institutions, Commodity Boards and Input Firms. In the process the end-

users, namely the farming community was totally neglected and never

cons~lted '~.

I 6 At the of the ~ntroduction of the New strategy it was the Department of Agriculture that had taken care of agricultural research, education and development programmes. But in 1971 the Kerala Agricultural Univers~ty was formed. With the formation of the University all the three tasks were assigned lo the Un~versity [Deepika, 7-3-1971:2]. i' The reference document is known as Package of Praclices Recommendations: Crops. The Kerala Agricultural University staned publishing the Package two years after its formation in 1971. By the time it has published twelve editions. Its first edition was in 1973 and the latest in 2002. The other editions were in 1974, 1975. 1976, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1993 and 1996. 18 It seems a paradox as the end users of the products of research farmers are never consulted or feedback taken from them. But a significant change occurred in the process of the preparation of the Package in 2002, which shall bc explained later. In the Package of Practices. 1986, we read from the

They developed the package to realise the priorities in technology

development. The most important and probably the only priority was to

increase production through productivity increase. Economic criteria

dominated decision- making; social, environmental, and cultural factors

were relatively unimportant, and the participation of the direct

'beneficiaries' of this technology was excluded.

The other significant process in the technology system has been the

pattern followed in the diffusion of the knowledge developed in the form of

new seeds and farming practices. In the traditional system the agents of

technology development, namely farmers (or the farming community)

themselves were the active agents in the process of diffusion.

In the Green Revolution strategy the tasks of technology

development and diffusion got separated. While research has been taken

care of by the University, the academic wing; extension or diffusion has

been entrusted mainly to the Department of Agriculture, the administrative

wing. The University has an extension wing, as already referred, but its

extent and direct reach to the farmers are limited.

The process of diffusion has been properly called 'transfer of

technology' (TOT) in the Green Revolution strategy. It means just to take

the new information and gives it directly to the end user, namely the farmer

for adoption. The Department of Agriculture, Government of Kerala has a

well-organised system of technology transfer or extension. The goal of

agricultural extension has been that of change through educational methods.

Extension is basically an educational function [Watts, 19841. Thus there has

been a 'teacher -student' attitude on the part of the extension personnel

foreword: thus: The recommendarions given in this publicalion were formulaled aJer delailed discussions held or a Scale Level Workrhop conducred by rhe Direcrorale of Exlension of rhe Kerala Agricullural Universily

210

towards the farmers. The pattern of development of agricultural extension

varies from country to country. It tried various models of technology

transfer.

Agricultural extension service in our country is primarily the

responsibility of State Departments of Agriculture. Gradually, organisations

supplying inputs, credit agencies and voluntary organisations have also

began to provide agricultural extension services [IGNOU, 19911.

The following exhibit summarises the pattern of technology

development and transfer in the Green Revolution system.

Exhibit 8.2: Green Revolution, Scientist-driven Technology Development and Transfer System.

) Basicsdence

Extmslon Dmlopm*nt pws

b 'Fanner is ignoranl attitude

Farmer 1 CIIent

b Local Farrmng Condltionr r Need of increasing production b Ready lo adopt

The scientist or researcher represents the whole system of technology

development. The impression has been that he has sufficient motivation in

the process and develops the technology that he thinks fitting to the farmer.

He conducts research on new varieties of seed and other farm inputs and

also in developing new practices in the farming system. He hands down the

new information directly to extension system represented by the extension

worker or personnel. The extension worker, in turn, takes it for onward

transfer and gives it directly to the farmer for adoption.

This process continues and the relation is unidirectional. The system

has only forward linkage. The researcher takes feed back neither directly

nor through the extension worker. The process of research was totally

mystified before the farmers. It was a task done exclusively in the

laboratory. The research and extension process followed the 'lab-to land'

pattern developed in the United States.

It is quite reasonable to believe that those who developed the initial

Green Revolution technology, principally biological scientists, had little

consideration to the cultural and socio-economic implications of their work,

although their broad concern was that of increasing food production so as to

reduce human misery. Their priorities were very limited and not integral to

the sustainable existence of the farm sector and the society. The new

technology was enthusiastically embraced by policy makers and other

scientists alike because it offered a quick solution to the society's critical

physical land problems caused by a rapidly shrinking land frontier and an

accompanying rise in the man-land ratio.

In the typical Green Revolution technology development paradigm,

research has become more academic. Scientists and extension personnel

were criticised of not very serious in addressing real farm problems.

Farmers have complained of scientists for their non-practical solutions for

the farm problems. Farmers who once spoke high of scientists and

extension workers (experiencing the initial high turn out in production),

started to doubt the credibility, accountability and the promptness of their

farm proposals (farm information). The typical Green Revolution pattern of

research and extension was also criticised on the ground that it did not take

any serious feedback from the farmers, the end users. This led to a practical

re-orientation in the organisation of extension in the line of extension

linkage with research and farmers.

The closing decades of the 2 0 ~ century have been characterised by

serious rethinking on the continued ability of the Green Revolution strategy

to feed the future population. Many warned against the dependence on the

Green Revolution technology that endangered the very existence of

humanity. Therefore, serious efforts have been coming up, in not only

reducing the consequences of the Green Revolution, but in evolving

alternative technologies.

A significant trait of this new trend has been the increasing tendency

of accepting the creative role of farmers in technology development and

diffusion. He has been made a participant in the process. There has been an

increasing global call for the same.

Post -Green Revolution agriculture is recognising the need to

incorporate previously underutilized farmer experimentation [Box, 1987;

Rhoades, 19891, farmer participation in formal research [Ashby, 1987;

Biggs, 1988; Farrington and Martin, 19871 and in technology development

[Malton et al, eds., 1984; Sagar and Farrington, 19881, and indigenous

technical knowledge (IK) [Brokensha et al, eds., 1980; Richards, 19851 in

the development of technologies that enhance sustainability.

In India, increasing skepticism about the social and ecological

consequences and priorities or motives behind the Green Revolution

technology led to serious discussions during the 1980s. The illusion that

science and technology could solve all the problems was gradually erased.

It resulted in a change in the attitude of the research system, which in turn

led to new approaches, special programmes and institutional innovations

intended to rectify the consequences of the Green Revolution technology

like environmental degradation, high-input usage, unremunerative farming

and so on.

In the pattern of technology development concepts like appropriate

technology, technology blending, participatory technology etc., have

evolved. New environment-friendly systems and practices like Farming

Systems Research, On-farm Research, Integrated Pest Management (IPM),

Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), Integrated Client-Oriented

Research Projects etc., have been developed and popularised.

Correspondingly, new initiatives like Organic Farming, Integrated Farming

Systems (IFS) like, 'one rice-one fish' cropping, GALASA etc., are being

tried. All these could be termed as Post-Green Revolution initiatives, as

they marked a deviation from the Green Revolution pattern and process of

technology development.

In Kuttanad, the Operational Research Project (oRP)'~ has been a

response to the environmental consequences due to increased application of

chemical inputs. It was a joint venture of the Keral Agricultural University

and the Department of Agriculture. It included projects like Integrated Pest

I 9 Introduced b y the ICAR in 1975, to control the r ~ c e pests which ravaged the Kuttanad paddy fields in the early 1970s. as a consequence o f the Green Revolut~on strategy in Kuttanad

214

Management (IPM) with pest and disease surveillance and adaptive trails

and Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) with fertiliser trials. All theses

programmes were with the participatory role of the farmers. In the pest and

disease surveillance programme farmers were given timely warning on the

preventive and control measures to be taken based on the counts of insect

pests collected in the light traps, and observation from the fixed plot and

roving survey.

The farmers co-operated with the project such that there was a

considerable reduction in the use of chemical inputs in farming. For

instance, table 8.1 presents the data on the sale of pesticides from a major

wholesale shop, in Kuttanad during 2000 to 2003. As there has been

difficulty in obtaining data on pesticide application directly from the

farmers, we relied on the sales data. We depended on the sales data of a

major fertiliser - pesticide wholesale dealer in Kuttanad. The table shows

that there has been a considerable reduction in the sale (use) of various

pesticides. Over the period, the sale of Methyil Parathion Metacid has come

down from 904.25 liters to 158.10 liters (a decline of about 82 per cent );

Monocrotophos from 1036.75 liters to 316.50(by about 70 per cent); and

Ekalux from 1182.8 to 315.30 (73 per cent) and Cypermethrin from 102.25

to 1.55(by about 98 per cent). The data suggest a considerable decline in the

application of the major pesticides by the farmers over the years.

Table 8.1: Trend in Pesticide Sales, Kuttanad (2000-01 to 2002-03) (in litres)

Methyl parathion 1 Year I Monocrotophos I Quinalphos metacid ekalux Cypermethrin

200 1-02 350.50 225.15 706.35 15.90

158.10 3 16.50 315.30 1.55 Source: Data collected from ~ e e d G k a l Agro Chemical Agencies, Edathua, Kuttanad

Diagrammatic Representation of Table 8.1

I Methyl parathion Monocrotophos Quinalphos ekalux Cyperrnethrin metacid I

Significant changes occurred in the pattern and attitude of the

agricultural extension system. Evaluation of the typical Green Revolution

pattern of extension at the global level, led to significant changes in the

organisational set up of technology transfer, brought about by the Training

and Visit (T&V) system. The novelty in the new system is said to be the

implementation of effective management principles in extension

organisation [Benor and Baxter, 19841. The system provided an

organisational structure and detailed mode of operation that ensured regular

visit of the extension agent to the farmers. The extension agent, based on

the visit, transmitted messages relevant to production needs, gave regular

feedback on farm problems to scientists for solution or for hrther

investigation. The extension staff received regular training to upgrade their

professional ability to serve the technological demands of the farmers2'.

20 For a detailed understanding of the organisation structure of the T&V system see: Daniel Benor and Michael Baxter 118841, Training and Visit Extension, A World Bank Publication and also Daniel Benor,

216

The T&V system21 of extension was introduced in India in 1974 to

improve the effectiveness of agricultural extension. It was first introduced

in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. In mid-1975, it came to be introduced in

six districts of West Bengal. Since then, the system has spread to almost all

the States of India [IGNOU, 1991:81].

The T&V system of agricultural extension was introduced in the

State of Kerala in 1981 under the World Bank aided 'Kerala Agricultural

Extension Project' (KAEP). The KAEP was initially implemented in 1981

in three districts, namely 'Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and Alappuzha, and

subsequently extended to all the districts in the State in 1983. The

agricultural extension set up of the department was reorganised into a single

unified service. Fortnightly training to Agricultural Officers and

Demonstrators was made an integral part of extension activities [State

Planning Board, 1987 and 199 I]. During the training regular feedback from

the farmers received through regular field visits was discussed and

recorded. This feedback was referred to the research machinery in the

regular monthly workshop attended by the sub division level extension

officers and the researchers at the regional or local research stations.

This feedback function of extension facilitated the continuous

reorientation of research towards the priority needs of farmers and the early

resolution of important technological constraints [Benor et, a1 1984:7]. The

implication of T & V system to technology development has been that the

farmers came to be heard by the scientists directly or through the extension

feedback in the process. The research system began to address the practical

James Q. tlarnson, and Michael Baxter [1984], Agricullural Exlension The Training and Visit Syslem, A World Bank Publication. 2 , The concept of T&V was developed by Daniel Benor, an Israeli extension expert, and was first tried in Seyhan Irrigation Project in Turkey.

problems raised by the farmers regarding adoption. The system tried to

ensure link between scientist/research and farmers, as shown in the

following exhibit.

Exhibit 8.3: Transitional, Participatory Technology Development and Transfer System

This created an atmosphere of participatory technology development,

in which the scientist or researcher based on his knowledge of basic and

agricultural science received feedback from the extension workers and the

farmers. He is influenced by the feedback and as the chief agent in

technology development sets the priorities and is aware of the challenges

in the field and research.

As per this pattern, the extension or development worker is aware of

the local farming conditions and he has the information about the farming

practices, received through training. There has been a significant attitudinal

change on the part of the extension worker towards the farmer. He came to

treat the farmer as sensible. Certain farm practices that have been developed

and followed by farmers came to be accepted and recommended by the

scientists and the extension workers. A typical case is the practice of re-

flooding for weed control before sowingZ2 [Thomas, 19941.

The farmer on the other hand, began to keep a critical attitude

towards the information passed on by the extension worker regarding

farming practices. He was not ready to fully adopt the recommendations of

the extension worker. He gave his feedback to the extension worker or to

the researcher and thus influenced the research process. A degree of

participation was ensured in the pattern.

This model came into existence in Kerala in the beginning of 1980s,

along with an institutional reorganisation of the extension network, through

the T&V programme or the Kerala Agricultural Extension Project. This led

to the formulation of new projects like Integrated Pest Management (IPM),

Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) etc. as already referred to.

The above phase serves as a transitional facet in the process of a

systemic change in the organisation of agricultural technology

development. Though the T &V system had been withdrawn, the orientation

that has been received through the programme still dominates the system.

As a proof of this attitude representatives of farmers began to be invited to

- 22 It has been a common practice, Sfill prevailing in Kuttanad. ARer land preparation for sowing, the field is allowed to be there as such. After a few days, seeds of weeds sprout up. After 3-5 days the field would be flooded w ~ l h water, which would remain for 7-10 days. All weeds would g o decayed and then the lields would be leveled for sowing. This practice was developed by farmers during the 1970s.

the workshops for updating khe package and practices by the Kerala

Agricultural University [KAU, 20001

Along with this orientation, a new system of technology

development is evolving in Kuttanad as part an international phenomenon.

A participatory approach in technology development [The Hindu, 20-05-

2001:5] has been the hallmark to such a system. The National Agriculture

Policy has accorded priority to regionalisation of agricul&e research based

on identified agro-climatic zones, promotion of micro-credit and' co-

operative form of enterprises [The Hindu, 2000:ll. The technology

development has been becoming more location specific. Its priorities are

redefined to accommodate the values of sustainability, environment

friendliness, cost minimisation and output maximisation.

Correspondingly the agents of technology development have also

began to change. Along with the scientist or researcher, extension personnel

and the farmer the local governrpent and the non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) came to assume a significant role.

In the new system, the farmer gets the recognition as one of the

deferential agents in the process of technology development. He began to

reassume his traditional role. A large number of farmers have taken various

initiatives to develop a farming system, which is environment friendly,

sustainable, cost effective and reasonably productive. This initiative may be

by an individual farmer or by a group of farmers in a padashekharam.

These initiatives have been given moral backing by certain NGOs which are

more locally based and are given funding by the local government, namely

the Grama Panchayat, the Block Panchayat or the Zilla Panchayat.

For instance, regional initiatives, either taken or monitored by

farmers in seed production with the help of researchers, extension

personnel, NGOs and local govemments are reported [The Hindu, 7-10-

1998; Deepika, 2001, The Hindu, 20011. In the case of seed production, an

initiative has been reported from the Zilla (District) Panchayat of Thrissur.

The Zilla Panchayat and some Block Panchayats in the District had evolved

a farmer participatory scheme for seed production and preservation during

1997-98. Retired officials of the Department spoke high of the programme

and promoted the scheme2'.

Similarly, farming system initiatives like integrated farming ('one

rice one rice ' farming), variants of organic farming, a moderate sustainable

agriculture initiative namely GALASA have been attempted by the farmers

in Kuttanad, as discussed in the last chapter. In all these initiatives farmers'

driving role in technology development is evolving.

Thus a new system of technology development is evolving in

Kuttanad. A re-orientation among the agricultural scientists and extension

personnel has been taking place to develop a productive and inter active

relationship among the various agents in technology development. Time

tested traditional farm practices developed by the farming community, as

mentioned before, are appreciated and popularised by researchers and

extension staff. Scientists and extension staff are becoming more receptive

to farmers. All genuine, sustainable farmer initiatives in technology

development are promotcd by the local govemments through funding. In

the whole process NGOs come to the help of the farming community in

-.

'' Reference 1s a letter addressed to us by Mr. Ramdas, a Retired Joint Director of Agriculture, Government uf Kerala and a promoter of the scheme, on 9-9-98.

motivating the farmers. This interactive pattern of technology development

is summarised in the following exhibit.

Exhibit 8.4: Evolving, Sustainable Farmer-Scientist Participatory Technology Development and Transfer System

In this evolving pattern of technology development, all have a

common agenda or priority in technology development, namely developing

sustainable systems or initiatives of farming. In this effort, the system

makes use of the strength of the traditional wisdom of the farming

community, the scientific knowledge of the scientists and the practical

knowledge of the extension workers on the field problems and the moral,

political and financial support of the NGOs and the local governments.

GALASA as already discussed has been a moderate effort in this

regard.

In each phase of agricultural technology development, there were

elements of the previous phase, but we identified each phase in terms of the

new pattern of technology development that had emerged in each phase.

Therefore, it has been observed that in each phase, at any particular moment

of time, we come across elements of the previous phase resulting in dualism

[Raj, 19901.

To sum up, the pattern of technology development and transfer has

changed across the three phases. The decisive factors in the process seem to

be the particular socio-economic perception of the agents and their

priorities. The consequences of a technology depended on the above factors.

As has been argued earlier, remnants of the previous system are seen in

every phase. However, the phases are marked by significant changes in the

organisation of production and technology.