The colour of an Indian farmer’s money

Were our crops to be tied, cyclically and in uneasy dependence, to the trickles of credit, India’s food stocks would be in a desperately poor state and food insecurity would stalk every district. To hear it from the Government of India and its multitude of agencies and allies, all of which in one way or another are connected with agriculture and food, the needs of the kisan (farmer) can be well met, and it takes only the kisan, toiling soul that she is, to “avail” of such plenitude.

Easier stated than done. We may not doubt the intentions that have made these provisions, but we prefer to see proof on the ground, in the fields of our marginal and small farmers, rather than as optimistic indicators that adorn the pages of reports read by no farmer. Where is this disconnection taking place? To borrow from the world of film, Yojana Bhavan and Krishi Bhavan, we have a problem! And it is this: the basis of every school of conventional economic thinking is scarcity – the idea that there is “not enough for everyone” – and the dramatic effects this reality has on human behaviour, and the measurement of behaviours is after all the DNA of economics. This allegation of scarcity is the foundation on which all of the economic systems of past and present are built.

Hence the problem is, are conventional economics approaches (from which flow these heavily-referenced reports and surveys that inform us about the state of India’s agriculture and food) any use for analysing a post-scarcity economy? Such as the ones our 640 districts will face over the next 25 years, and indeed which they face every time there is a flood or a drought? I think not. We should rather break free from analysing these matters and issues in the binary terms of ‘price’ and ‘cost’ – these are economics ‘tags’ that we intuitively know have no significance in an agro-ecological system. For social scientists and multi-disciplinarians, this is simple enough, not so for the organs and apparatus of governance. Yet for the sake of reaching an understanding that is more in tune with the kisan, it is unavoidable. When will one culture of understanding displace the other? This may not be foretold, but can be encouraged.

Let us make a rapid and selective review of what is being said about credit, the provision of money, to our farmers and agriculturists. The following paragraphs are from the Reserve Bank of India’s ‘Report of the Committee on Priority Sector Lending (2012 February), whose executive summary has said: “The need for directed lending in India would continue considering that there is lack of access to credit for a vast segment of the society. Credit remains a scarce commodity for certain sections/sectors and they continue to remain outside purview of the formal financial system. Therefore, those sectors where sufficient credit does not flow, those people who do not get adequate credit may get the benefit of directed lending.” [Get this document here (pdf).]

There are a few important insights that this paragraph provides. One, perhaps the most important, is that credit is presented as simultaneously a need for the small farmer and as a commodity (a scarce one, do you notice?). Two, there is a formal and an informal, and it is the products of the formal that are presented as possessing the ability to solve the small and marginal farmer’s problems. Three, there is a class stratification within the recipients of credit, those who are “financially included” and those who are not – and we have seen enough evidence over the last decade to show that the overlap of the marginal farmers and the financially excluded is very high, high enough to have been surprising two Plan periods ago, and for the measures this RBI report is discussing now, to have been not a preface, but an epilogue. Read the full comment on Agropedia.

Advertisement

The realities of India’s fields and farms

India’s economy planners when discussing agriculture are no closer to farm and field realities. That much is clear from a reading of the ‘Review of The Indian Economy 2010-11’, by the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, released to the public on 2011 February 22.

The document had, I suspect, been finalised and was waiting for the data from the Second Advance Estimates of agricultural production for the 2010-11 year. A cursory analysis of this forms the ‘Agriculture’ section of the ‘Review’ [read the relevant portions of the Review here].

Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, C Rangarajan (centre), flanked by members Suman Bery (right) and Saumitra Chaudhuri releasing the 'Review of the Economy 2010-11' in New Delhi on 21 February 2011. Photo: The Hindu/V V Krishnan

It is in the ‘Concluding Comments’ section concerning agriculture in India that the intent and direction of the current government are underlined. There are a few strong pointers:

* “As against the target of average 4 per cent growth during the Eleventh Plan period, the actual average growth is likely to be slightly less than 3 per cent.” Which only indicates that ‘growth’ in the agricultural sector will continue to be seen as a primary consideration, outweighing the sustainable use of natural resources management. The growth insistence will also mean the continued support of high-input and financially burdensome agricultural methods.

* “Somewhat in parallel, the per capita availability in grams per day has also not gone up in a context where per capita income has been rising quite strongly.” The Economic Advisory Council has not been honest enough to draw the needed connections – between population growth and therefore foodgrain demand, and the need for urgently revisiting the basis for planning agricultural cultivation at the district level.

* “The international prices for grain have been very volatile and much elevated in recent times and therefore higher levels of domestic output is an even more important factor to consider in the context of domestic food security.” This is spot on. Why doesn’t the rest of the Concluding remarks section build on this?

* “Attention must be focused on building rural infrastructure, developing technologies that are appropriate to the region which have to be disseminated – delivered in an efficient fashion. The institutions that are enjoined with this task have to be activated in a more energetic fashion.” The Concluding Remarks does not build on the above point because of such weak, vague and misguided points as this one. ‘Technologies’ and ‘Infrastructure’ for growth at 4%? Or for food security?

* “The liberalization of the economy has benefited the farm sector and as a result the terms of trade for agriculture are no longer adverse.” This is one of the Big Contradictions of the Review. No, the liberalisation of the economy has NOT benefited the farm sector. Has the Government of India and its economic planners so quickly and so completely forgotten that 200,000 farmers have committed suicide over the last decade?

* “Investment in the farm sector has also picked up substantially and capital formation as a percentage of agricultural GDP has more than doubled in the past decade.” To what end? To achieve the 4% growth target which is denominated in ‘technology’ and ‘infrastructure’ in the agri sector? Has there been even 2% annual growth in the incomes of the cultivating households?

Demonstrators shout slogans as they hold steel plates during a protest rally in New Delhi February 23, 2011. Tens of thousands of trade unionists, including those from a group linked to the ruling Congress party, marched through the streets of the capital on Wednesday to protest food prices, piling pressure on a government already under fire over graft. Photo: Reuters/Parivartan Sharma

* “There seems to be evidence that better quality seeds and superior cultural practices are available, but the delivery system for translating these to the field are lagging.” This is where the threat in the Review lies. What delivery systems and who owns them?

* “A major hurdle in agricultural development is the inefficiency of the delivery systems. There is a plethora of institutions in research, extension, credit and marketing. However, efficacy of these institutions to deliver goods and services to the country’s vast small and marginal farms section is quite limited. This is a serious cause for concern.” True. How to support this point and rescue it from the overall contradictions of the Concluding Remarks?

* “There is need therefore, to attune these various institutions to the emerging agrarian structure, which is progressively identified with the small and marginal farmers.” True.

* “A two-fold strategy is indicated for this purpose. One, to encourage farmer’s collaborative efforts as in cooperatives, or more recently in producers companies, and vertical integration of production and marketing by suitable models of contract farming.” Emphatically NO. This is not the answer.

* “Two, at the institutional level, the organizational changes to cut down the cost of transactions (e.g. through a flexible and inclusive business correspondent model) and the use of information technology for the same purpose needs to be encouraged.” True with reservations. Infotech is a means and not an end.

* “In addition both for purposes of ensuring remunerative prices for farmers as well as an anti-inflationary measure, the strengthening of organized retail, as well as use of these outlets for public distribution along with the strengthening of the existing public distribution networks, are measures that need to be tried out seriously.” This is dreadfully ill-advised and apparently motivated by the FDI-seeking stand of the central government. This point of view must be stopped immediately. Dozens of farmers’ cooperatives and small traders have clearly and vociferously rejected FDI-driven organised retail in India. This point holds the back door open for the entry of corporate retail and will be used to legitimise retail control over access to food to vulnerable rural populations.

* “Local procurement by State Government agencies provides an incentive for farmers to grow grain. Coarse cereals are a varied commodity and tastes differ across States. There is also a problem in handling coarse grains.” Yes, yes and no. This point must be supported and rescued from the other corporate-oriented directions of the Review.

[Second Advance Estimates are available from here.]

India’s economy planners when discussing agriculture are no closer to farm and field realities. That

much is clear from a reading of the ‘Review of The Indian Economy 2010-11’, by the Economic

Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, released to the public on 2011 February 22.

The document had, I suspect, been finalised and was waiting for the data from the Second

Advance Estimates of agricultural production for the 2010-11 year. A cursory analysis of this forms

the ‘Agriculture’ section of the ‘Review’ (read the relevant portions of the Review here).

https://makanaka.wordpress.com/agriculture-india-review-2010-11/

It is in the ‘Concluding Comments’ section concerning agriculture in India that the intent and

direction of the current government are underlined. There are a few strong pointers:

* “As against the target of average 4 per cent growth during the Eleventh Plan period, the actual

average growth is likely to be slightly less than 3 per cent.” Which only indicates that ‘growth’ in

the agricultural sector will continue to be seen as a primary consideration, outweighing the

sustainable use of natural resources management. The growth insistence will also mean the

continued support of high-input agricultural methods.

* “Somewhat in parallel, the per capita availability in grams per day has also not gone up in a

context where per capita income has been rising quite strongly.” The Economic Advisory Council

has not been honest enough to draw the needed connections – between population growth and

therefore foodgrain demand, and the need for urgently revisiting the basis for planning agricultural

cultivation at the district level.

* “The international prices for grain have been very volatile and much elevated in recent times and

therefore higher levels of domestic output is an even more important factor to consider in the

context of domestic food security.” This is spot on. Why doesn’t the rest of the Concluding remarks

section build on this?

* “Attention must be focused on building rural infrastructure, developing technologies that are

appropriate to the region which have to be disseminated – delivered in an efficient fashion. The

institutions that are enjoined with this task have to be activated in a more energetic fashion.” The

Concluding Remarks does not build on the above point for the weak, vague and misguided point

here. ‘Technologies’ and ‘Infrastructure’ for growth at 4%? Or for food security?

* “The liberalization of the economy has benefited the farm sector and as a result the terms of

trade for agriculture are no longer adverse.” This is one of the Big Contradictions of the Review. No,

the liberalisation of the economy has NOT benefited the farm sector. Has the Government of India

and its economic planners so quickly and so completely forgotten that 200,000 farmers have

committed suicide over the last decade?

* “Investment in the farm sector has also picked up substantially and capital formation as a

percentage of agricultural GDP has more than doubled in the past decade.” To what end? To

achieve the 4% growth target which is denominated in ‘technology’ and ‘infrastructure’ in the agri

sector? Has there been even 2% annual growth in the incomes of the cultivating households?

* “There seems to be evidence that better quality seeds and superior cultural practices are

available, but the delivery system for translating these to the field are lagging.” This is where the

threat lies. What delivery systems and who owns them?

* “A major hurdle in agricultural development is the inefficiency of the delivery systems. There is a

plethora of institutions in research, extension, credit and marketing. However, efficacy of these

institutions to deliver goods and services to the country’s vast small and marginal farms section is

quite limited. This is a serious cause for concern.” True. How to support this point and rescue it

from the overall contradictions of the Concluding Remarks?

* “There is need therefore, to attune these various institutions to the emerging agrarian structure,

which is progressively identified with the small and marginal farmers.” True.

* “A two-fold strategy is indicated for this purpose. One, to encourage farmer’s collaborative

efforts as in cooperatives, or more recently in producers companies, and vertical integration of

production and marketing by suitable models of contract farming.” Emphatically NO. This is not the

answer.

* “Two, at the institutional level, the organizational changes to cut down the cost of transactions

(e.g. through a flexible and inclusive business correspondent model) and the use of information

technology for the same purpose needs to be encouraged.” True with reservations. Infotech is a

means and not an end.

* “In addition both for purposes of ensuring remunerative prices for farmers as well as an

anti-inflationary measure, the strengthening of organized retail, as well as use of these outlets for

public distribution along with the strengthening of the existing public distribution networks, are

measures that need to be tried out seriously.” This is dreadfully ill-advised. This point of view must

be stopped immediately. Dozens of farmers’ cooperatives and small traders have clearly and

vociferously rejected FDI-driven organised retail in India. This point holds the back door open for

the entry of corporate retail.

* “Local procurement by State Government agencies provides an incentive for farmers to grow

grain. Coarse cereals are a varied commodity and tastes differ across States. There is also a

problem in handling coarse grains.” Yes, yes and no. This point must be supported and rescued from

the other corporate-oriented directions of the Review.

Why drought and hunger in Africa spells opportunity for global agri-tech

Climate change is leading to more intense drought conditions in Africa. Small and marginal farmers, pastoralists and nomadic communities are the most vulnerable and the hardest hit. Already. aid agencies have warned that 10 million people are already facing severe food shortages, particularly in the landlocked countries of Chad and Niger, after a drought led to the failure of last year’s crops. As many as 400,000 children are at risk of dying from starvation in Niger alone, according to Save the Children.

The Independent of Britain has reported that unusually heavy rains have washed away this year’s crops and killed cattle in a region dependent on subsistence agriculture. Organisations including Oxfam and Save the Children say that the slow international response to the emergency means that only 40 per cent of those affected are receiving food aid. As many as four out of five children require treatment for malnutrition in clinics.

Against this grim new news, the global agri-technology networks are readying plans to use possible food shortages to push new structures of seed, funding and conditions onto countries looking for quick fix solutions. One such programme ia the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) which has announced that it received a major boost as several countries have begun drawing on funds from a US$22 billion pledge made by the G8.

Under CAADP, African governments are committed to increase their national budget expenditure on agriculture to at least 10 percent. The Programme, agreed by heads of state at the 2003 summit of the African Union, expects a six percent growth rate in agriculture every year. What part of this growth will meet the needs of the drought-hit people in Chad and Niger is not discussed.

Close behind is the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (known by its Spanish acronym CIMMYT, one of the CGIAR centres) which has used the alarming food situation news as a prop on which to announce a study which it says “finds widespread adoption of recently developed drought-tolerant varieties of maize could boost harvests in 13 African countries by 10 to 34 percent and generate up to US$1.5 billion in benefits for producers and consumers“. Who will these producers and consumers be?

The study was conducted as part of the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Initiative (DTMA) implemented by CIMMYT and IITA with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. CIMMYT and IITA have said they “worked with national agriculture research centers in Africa to develop over 50 new maize varieties that in drought conditions can produce yields that are 20 to 50 percent higher than existing varieties”. There is no mention of Africa’s immense wealth of traditional cereals or the communities that have guarded and used old growing knowledge in difficult times.

Finally, from August 30 to September 4, Namibia hosted the annual Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) Regional Food Security Policy Dialogue, where over 200 policymakers, farmers, agricultural product dealers, scientists and non-governmental organisations from across Africa and the world gathered “to address African priorities on climate change and its impacts on food security, agricultural development and natural resource management”.

The tone and tenor is astonishingly upbeat, especially considering the dreadful food situation and climate change news that’s now coming out daily from central, eastern and north Africa: “Increasing the collaboration between public and private sector organisations can also help build infrastructure, secure better access to natural resources, improve the distribution of agricultural inputs and services, and share best practices. The Farming First coalition is a successful example of farmers, scientists, engineers, industry and agricultural development organisations coming together to push for improved agricultural policies which benefit farmers while safeguarding natural resources over the long term.”

FANRPAN has cited two reports by consulting firm McKinsey and Company which have (1) estimated that Africa produced only 10 percent of the world’s crops despite representing a quarter of land under cultivation and (2) noted that 60 percent of the world’s uncultivated arable land lies in Africa with the potential for African yields to grow in value more than three-fold by the year 2030, from US$280 billion today to US$880 billion.

Those extraordinarily large sums may explain why FANRPAN is currently working in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation “to improve food security throughout sub-Saharan Africa by promoting the understanding of climate change science and its integration into policy development and research agendas”. FANRPAN said it is also working with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) – a study cell based in Washington, USA, whose research objectives have tended towards international agricultural trade in recent years. A recent collaboration is called ‘Strategies for Adapting to Climate Change in Rural sub-Saharan Africa: Targeting the Most Vulnerable’ which says it recognises the interrelated impact of climate change on household poverty, hunger and food security.

No doubt, but these high-minded statements of objectives come bundled with some decidedly commercial conditions. As IPS news reports, there are conditions attached to how countries will be accessing CAADP funds. Countries will need to have gone through the CAADP process, which includes designing a “national investment plan” which contains detailed and fully-costed programmes and signing a “CAADP compact”. This is nothing but an agreement between the government, regional representatives and “development partners” for “a focused implementation of the programme”. Moreover, the investment plans will have to undergo “an independent technical review” and the plan should also “have been tabled before a high-level CAADP business meeting” before funds are allocated. Which simply means that there are only so many ways the money can move.

For all these noble programmes, the countries in their sights are: Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The aid agencies on the ground are warning again what they have said last year, the year before, five years ago, a decade ago. “After six months without proper nutrition, these children have little resistance to disease,” said Severine Courtiol, Save the Children’s Niger manager. “There is little children can do to avoid coming into contact with this contaminated, disease-ridden floodwater. That’s why it’s critical we make sure they get enough food so they are strong enough to fight off and recover from sickness.”

Robert Bailey, Oxfam’s west Africa campaigns manager, said that some food was available in marketplaces in Niger, but was too expensive for ordinary households to afford. As a result, many were reduced to eating leaves and berries. Chad and parts of Mali were also affected, he added. “The international donor response has been too little too late. We estimate that 7.9 million people are affected by food shortages in Niger, with only 40 per cent receiving international aid. The other 60 per cent are dependent on the government and NGOs [non-governmental organisations]. But the government has no food.”

India’s new agricultures, clean and local

The new issue of Infochange India’s journal, Agenda, is about India’s new agricultures. I’m delighted to have edited and compiled this volume, the contributions to which you can read on the Infochange India website. It is in my view a nicely balanced volume, with insight and knowledge from practitioners and academics, government officials and activists. Here are the contents:

Towards a new agriculture – With roughly 45,000 certified organic farms operating in India, there is finally a rejection of resource-extractive industrial agriculture and a return to traditional, sustainable and ecologically safe farming. All over India rural revivalists are rejecting the corporatised, programmatic, high-input model of agriculture and following agro-ecological approaches in which shared, distributed knowledge systems provide ways to adapt to changing climate and a shrinking natural resource base. Rahul Goswami explains.

An evolutionary view of Indian agriculture – Farmers work with knowledge systems that evolve with time and circumstance. They learn and unlearn, choosing the appropriate knowledge in their struggle to earn a livelihood. While scientists rely on averages, the knowledge of local people is dynamic and up-to-date, continually revised as conditions alter, writes A Thimmaiah. The integration of scientific knowledge systems with indigenous knowledge systems is vital to make agriculture sustainable.

Tamil Nadu’s organic revolution – With chemical farming becoming uneconomical and grain yields declining, more and more farmers are switching to organic agriculture, says natural scientist G Nammalvar in this interview with Claude Alvares. Nammalvar has been training organic farmers and setting up learning centres in Tamil Nadu for three decades. Trainings sometimes need to be held in marriage halls in order to accommodate up to 1,000 farmers.

Return to the good earth in Sangli – Jayant Barve used to market chemical fertilisers and pesticides and practise chemical agriculture himself. In 1988, he switched to sustainable agriculture, and has never looked back since. In this interview he emphasises that despite much lower input costs, organic farming does give the same yield as chemical agriculture, sometimes even more. An interview by Claude Alvares.

Gulmohur trees in bloom, May in Maharashtra

The new natural economics of agriculture – Farmer Subhash Sharma watched the decline of his soil and agricultural yields before he let nature be his teacher and understood the agro-economics of agriculture. He abandoned insecticides and chemical fertilisers and relied instead on the cow, trees, birds and vegetation.

Climate change and food security – Rice production in India could decrease by almost a tonne/hectare if the temperature goes up 2 C, while each 1 C rise in mean temperature could cause wheat yield losses of 7 million tonnes per year. A recent national conference on food security and agriculture deliberated strategies to protect agriculture, food and nutrition security in the time of climate change. Suman Sahai reports.

Local solutions to climate change – In developing countries, 11% of arable land could be affected by climate change. Indeed, farmers are already facing the impact of climate change. The need of the hour, say Sreenath Dixit and B Venkateswarlu, is not to wait for global agreements on mitigating climate change but to act locally, intelligently and consistently, as is being done with water harvesting solutions for rainfed agriculture in Andhra Pradesh.

Tackling climate change in Gorakhpur – The people of Gorakhpur district, UP, have come to expect heavy rains followed by long dry spells as a consequence of climate change. But they are no longer allowing climate change to affect their crops. At shared learning dialogues, they are learning about the benefits of multi-cropping, alternative farming, soil management and seed autonomy. Surekha Sule reports.

In the state of Goa, western India, new residential blocks loom over shrinking fields. The produce from such fields once fed the capital city of Panaji, which now imports food 130 kilometres from the neighbouring state of Karnataka

Agriculture at nature’s mercy – In recent decades, market forces have prompted farmers in the Sunderbans to choose modern, high-yielding varieties of paddy, oblivious to their sensitivity to salt. Cyclone Aila, which caused a huge inundation of salt in the fields, proved that this was a costly mistake: every farmer who sowed the modern seed ended up with no produce, while those who planted traditional salt-tolerant varieties managed to harvest a little rice. Sukanta Das Gupta reports.

Resilience of man and nature – Cyclone Aila seemed to have broken the back of agriculture in the Sunderbans. Most observers, including Santadas Ghosh, felt it would be years before agricultural activity got back to normal. But just three months after the cyclone, salinity notwithstanding, seeds were sprouting and the freshwater ecology stirring with life.

Animal farms – The Green Revolution impacted livestock-rearing as well as agriculture. Farmers were encouraged to shift from low-input backyard systems to corporatised capital-intensive systems. As a result, write Nitya S Ghotge and Sagari R Ramdas, there was an artificial divide between livestock-rearing and agriculture, leading to the further crumbling of fragile livelihoods of small and landless farmers. Organisations such as Anthra are now working with communities to revitalise and re-integrate livestock and agriculture.

Women farmers: From seed to kitchen – Women contribute 50-60% of labour in farm production in India. There is evidence to suggest, writes Kavya Dashora, that if agriculture were focused on women, outputs could increase by as much as 10-20%, the ecological balance could be restored, and food security of communities improved.

Local grain in Mapusa market, North Goa

Empty claims of financial inclusion – Government has been broadcasting its success in doubling institutional credit to the agricultural sector. But these numbers have little meaning: 85% of accounts opened were inoperative, 72% had zero or minimum balance, and only 15% had a balance over Rs 100. It is paradoxical, writes P S M Rao, to talk about ‘inclusive growth’ when our policies and practices tread the path of exclusion.

Natural farming, tribal farming – In major parts of India, agriculture is in crisis, with very low returns and large-scale destruction of cropped lands. Conservation agriculture can help small and middle farmers escape the downward spiral that impoverishes them even as it destroys the soil and ecosystem, writes Vidhya Das. Tribal farmers in particular have an intuitive understanding of natural farming techniques, Agragamee discovered during its nascent initiatives in organic conservation agriculture with tribal farmers in Orissa.

The home gardens of Wayanad – Wayanad, which has been in the news for the high number of farmer suicides, is also known for widespread homestead farming. A typical home garden integrates trees with field crops, livestock, poultry and fish. Home gardens form a dominant and promising land use system and maintain high levels of productivity, stability and sustainability, say A V Santhoshkumar and Kaoru Ichikawa.

Small farmer zindabad – More than 80% of India’s farmers are small and marginal farmers. It has been empirically established that small farms produce more per hectare than their larger counterparts. It is therefore imperative to protect the interests of small farmers through measures that help promote and stabilise incomes, reduce risks, and increase profitability, and at the same time improve availability and access to inputs, markets and credit. Extract from the report of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS), ‘The Challenge of Employment in India: An Informal Economy Perspective’ (2009).

The tired mirage of top-down technology – India’s large and complex public agricultural research and extension system, obsessed with the area-production-yield mantra, is geared towards harnessing technology to close the yield gap, while overlooking ago-ecological approaches entirely. This has been an error of staggering proportions, says Rahul Goswami.

The gap between field and lab – In India, publicly-funded research shapes the choices available to farmers, food workers and consumers. But farmers and consumers are only at the receiving end of agricultural research, never involved in it, says Anitha Pailoor. Raitateerpu, a farmers’ jury in Karnataka, wants to ensure that citizens are involved in decisions around science, technology and policymaking.

Kudrat, Karishma and other living seeds – Prakash Raghuvanshi has developed dozens of high-yielding, disease-resistant, open pollinated seeds, distributing them to 2 million farmers in 14 states. He also trains farmers in the basics of selection and plant breeding at his small farm near Varanasi. His aim is clear: to conserve and protect desi (indigenous) seed varieties, thereby freeing the farmer from the stranglehold of foreign seed companies and the cycle of debt and dependence. Anjali Pathak reports.