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.