Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
'exotic' elements into the traditional farming led to multitude of environ-
mental issues.”30
In short, argues the policy, modernity was not the panacea that Green
Revolution advocates thought it would be: “As a result of all these 'mod-
ern' techniques, the air, water and the soil were polluted; most food grains
and farm products were contaminated by pesticides.” Moreover, the
Green Revolution did not reduce hunger, because “food crops became
non-
atractive, while cash crops became more remunerative.” According
to the board, “many farmers have realized that they are fighting a loos-
ing [
sic
] batle with the 'high yield variety
—fertilizer-pesticide pack '
of Green Revolution. They have also realized that the degradation and
disruption of the fragile ecosystems of the 'God's own country' are the
chief culprits for the water scarcity, nutritional insecurity, loss of primary
productivity and agrarian crisis being faced by the State.”31
The solution, as identified by the board in the policy, was to reject the
new system of doing agriculture: “The farmers in Kerala are convinced
that the only way is to return to the traditional sustainable ways of cultiva-
tion without harming the ecosystem.”32 Thus, within the organic farming
policy itself, the Biodiversity Board explicitly positions organic farming
as “traditional,” in contrast to “modern” farming, and rejects the Green
Revolution as a strategy for achieving Indian autonomy and food security.
The Biodiversity Board is not averse to innovations and technology,
nor is it opposed to research. For example, the board partnered with sev-
eral university scientists in Kerala to pilot an organic farming project in
Palakkad District in 2008, and to evaluate and monitor the success of the
project. Part of the board's positioning as the advocate of tradition, there-
fore, is a strategic response to farmers' claims that contemporary agricul-
tural research in Kerala occurs without them and is not to their benefit.
After all, it was Dayal, an organic farmer representing many other farmers
in the state, who publicly asked a scientist opposed to the organic farming
policy at the first workshop: “W hy should we have you?”
Thanal has toed this line about science and agricultural bureaucracy
as well, and Usha and Sridhar constantly play down their own scientific
training in laboratories and universities. Both Sridhar and Usha view
mainstream science and research as disconnected from farmers and or-
