Green revolution and social change
The Green Revolution emerged in the 1960s as a technological response to food shortages and agricultural stagnation. Spearheaded by M.S. Swaminathan in India and Norman Borlaug globally, the revolution introduced high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice, along with modern inputs such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and advanced irrigation techniques. Initially implemented in Punjab, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh, the program successfully boosted agricultural productivity and transformed India from a food-deficit to a food-surplus nation.
Economically, the Green Revolution contributed significantly to national food security and rural incomes. The increased crop yields supported the growth of agro-based industries such as food processing, fertilizer manufacturing, and agricultural machinery production. It also stimulated rural employment and overall economic growth. However, the benefits were not evenly distributed. Medium and large farmers, with better access to resources, credit, and state support, reaped most of the rewards. Small and marginal farmers, lacking capital and institutional support, were often left behind. As Paul Brass observed, the Green Revolution’s success relied heavily on the affluent farmer class who could afford the new inputs and had the political leverage to influence policy. Rudolf and Rudolf described the rise of “bullock-cart capitalism,” where traditional agrarian structures gave way to a new class of agrarian capitalists driven by profit motives.
This uneven distribution of benefits led to deeper class stratification in rural areas. According to Jan Breman, mechanization and commercialization de-peasantized the countryside, turning small farmers into landless laborers and creating a rural proletariat. Many tenant farmers were evicted as landowners began to cultivate their land directly, spurred by rising profits. KS Gill noted that mechanization displaced labor and led to unemployment among agricultural workers. The migration of male laborers from eastern India to Green Revolution regions created further demographic and social shifts. Women were left behind to manage households and farming tasks, leading to the feminization of agriculture and intensification of rural poverty. Nivedita Menon argued that these shifts reinforced patriarchy and gender-based inequalities, as women remained excluded from land ownership and were not trained in modern agricultural methods. Ashish Bose highlighted that the desire for male heirs, linked to land inheritance, worsened sex ratios in prosperous agrarian areas.
The Green Revolution also reshaped rural caste dynamics. Dominant castes—often middle castes and OBCs—emerged as powerful landholders and political actors, leveraging their newfound economic power. SC Dube emphasized how these castes used a mix of coercion and co-option to control lower castes and maintain their dominance. The rise of agrarian political mobilization, exemplified by leaders like Chaudhary Charan Singh and the Mandal politics of the 1980s, demonstrated how the Green Revolution spurred new political alignments. Sanjay Baru noted that these farmer movements were rooted in the socio-economic transformations triggered by the revolution.
At the same time, traditional institutions such as the jajmani system began to disintegrate. The patron-client relationships that once governed rural economic exchanges gave way to cash-based transactions and exploitative labor arrangements. Jan Breman observed that the shift from reciprocal obligation to capitalist exploitation intensified class divisions. The erosion of traditional agricultural knowledge and practices was another unintended outcome of the revolution, as indigenous methods were replaced by chemical-intensive monoculture farming.
Environmental degradation became a critical concern in the wake of the Green Revolution. The excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides led to soil and water pollution, while over-extraction of groundwater caused a drastic fall in water tables. Studies by Dr. Reyes Tirado revealed widespread environmental toxicity in regions like Bathinda and Ludhiana, turning them into “cancer capitals.” These consequences raised questions about the long-term sustainability of the Green Revolution model.
The revolution also gave rise to new interest groups. A class of wealthy farmers emerged who began lobbying for their economic interests, demanding minimum support prices (MSP), subsidies on electricity and irrigation, and protection from market reforms. This trend was evident in the farmer protests against the Farm Laws in 2020, which were seen as a threat to the entrenched economic interests of these groups. Andre Béteille acknowledged the resilience and adaptability of Indian farmers, crediting them with absorbing technological innovations and navigating complex socio-political landscapes. Conversely, Vandana Shiva criticized the corporate-led second wave of the Green Revolution, claiming it had sown the “seeds of suicide” by making farming financially unsustainable. Bhalla and Chaddha recognized the weakening of caste-based discrimination and untouchability but also pointed to rising disparities and hereditary privilege. P.C. Joshi viewed agrarian unrest as rooted in outdated social structures and exacerbated by technological disruptions, while Hanumanta Rao highlighted the positive outcomes—employment generation, rural migration, and prevention of famines.