In the first phase of the Green Revolution, in the 1960s and 1970s the introduction of new technology seemed to be increasing inequalities in rural society. Green Revolution crops were highly profitable, mainly because they yielded more produce, well-to-do farmers who had access to land, capital, technology, and know-how, and those who could invest in the new seeds and fertilizers, could increase their production and earn more money. However, in many cases it led to the displacement of tenant-cultivators. For landowners began to take back land from their tenants and cultivate it directly because cultivation was becoming more profitable. This made the rich farmers better off, and worsened the condition of the landless and marginal holders. In addition the introduction of machinery such as tillers, tractors, threshers, and harvesters led to the displacement of the service groups who used to carry out these agriculture-related activities. The ultimate outcome of the Green Revolution was a process of 'differentiation', in which the rich grew richer and many of the poor stagnated or grew poorer. Moreover, rising prices and a shift in the mode of payment of agricultural workers from payment in kind (grain) to cash, actually worsened the economic condition of most rural workers. In the second phase of the Green Revolution which began in 1980 there was increasing commercialization and dependence on the market farmers who once grew food for consumption now depend on the market for the incomes. In most of the Green Revolution areas, farmers have switched from a multi-crop system, which allowed them to spread risks, to a mono-crop regime. Which means that there is nothing to fall back on in case of crop failure. Another negative outcome of the Green Revolution strategy was the worsening of regional inequalities.
Which of the following is Not outcome of the Green revolution?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 3
The correct answer is Option (3) → Tenant-cultivators got more work
Option (1) Poor farmers remained poor — An outcome (Incorrect). The ultimate outcome was a process of ‘differentiation’, in which many of the poor stagnated or grew poorer.
Option (2) Rich farmers became richer — An outcome (Incorrect). In the same process of differentiation the rich grew richer, since only they could invest in the new seeds and fertilisers.
Option (3) Tenant-cultivators got more work — Not an outcome (Correct). The opposite happened. As cultivation became more profitable, landowners took back land from their tenants and cultivated it directly, so the Green Revolution led to the displacement of tenant-cultivators.
Option (4) Landowners started cultivating their land — An outcome (Incorrect). Landowners began to take back land from their tenants and cultivate it directly, because cultivation was becoming more profitable.
NCERT (2025-26): “4.3 The Green Revolution and its Social Consequences … Thus, in the first phase of the Green Revolution, in the 1960s and 1970s, the introduction of new technology seemed to be increasing inequalities in rural society. Green Revolution crops were highly profitable, mainly because they yielded more produce. Well-to-do farmers who had access to land, capital, technology, and know-how, and those who could invest in the new seeds and fertilisers, could increase their production and earn more money. However, in many cases it led to the displacement of tenant-cultivators. For landowners began to take back land from their tenants and cultivate it directly because cultivation was becoming more profitable. This made the rich farmers better off, and worsened the condition of the landless and marginal holders.” “The ultimate outcome of the Green Revolution was a process of ‘differentiation’, in which the rich grew richer and many of the poor stagnated or grew poorer. It should be noted that employment and wages for agricultural workers did increase in many areas, because the demand for labour increased. Moreover, rising prices and a shift in the mode of payment of agricultural workers from payment in kind (grain) to cash, actually worsened the economic condition of most rural workers.…” |