Achievements in ecologically protective farming have been reported from Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh as well as other states, apart from scattered but highly encouraging efforts here and there in most states, including green revolution states like Haryana and Punjab.

In Haryana and elsewhere, there are reports of linking organic farmers directly to urban consumers who happily pay a higher price to protect their health, to the mutual benefit of both sides. As a writer who has been promoting ecologically protective farming for about 45 years, I can say with confidence that during all this time, news of promising efforts and initiatives had been coming in from various parts of the country; if these initiatives had been promoted by the government, then today our country would have been the leader in the production of healthier food and ecologically protective farming.

Unfortunately, time and again it has been seen during the last six decades that the government discouraged such initiatives. This tendency increased after the promotion of GM (genetically modified) crops in a big way with the rapid spread of Bt. cotton in India using fake data and destroying the rich heritage of indigenous cotton varieties going back hundreds of years. Two examples will help to make it clear how government policy has failed to protect public interest.

When Dr. R H Richharia was victimized badly he had to leave his post as Director of Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, and returned to live in his home-state of Madhya Pradesh. Chhattisgarh was then a part of Madhya Pradesh. Some people told the then Chief Minister, Shyama Charan Shukla, about the jewel who lived in the state and encouraged him to use the services of Dr. Richharia to bring significant improvements in rice farming in Madhya Pradesh (with special emphasis on Chhattisgarh). So, Dr. Richharia was brought back from his retirement to head a new organisation based in Raipur, which was to become the base of a new strategy of increasing not just rice production but also rice biodiversity.

This strategy was to be based on a decentralised approach to protect and promote thousands of local rice varieties, an approach that was considered very promising not just for the state but for the entire country. For the next few years some of the most promising work on rice was taken up. Now in Chhattisgarh, this great scientist, who had obtained a Ph.D. from Cambridge in record time at a very young age, mixed with the tribal farmers of Bastar and discovered such great wisdom in their farming systems.

The traditional varieties grown by these farmers were documented for the first time in a scientific way and it was proved that they could give the same (or higher) yields as green revolution varieties without the support of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This approach also moved beyond mere yield considerations. Different varieties useful for different kinds of conditions, were identified separately and promoted.

However, just when this work had reached an important stage and rich collections of diverse varieties had been assembled as an important base, these efforts were disrupted by the same interests which were behind the earlier victimization of Dr. Richharia. His plans disrupted a second time, Dr.Richharia had to return to a quiet, retired life, although even here he continued to contribute within the limits of his personal constraints.

The second example that can be given here is of farmer-innovator Mangal Singh, who invented a device called Mangal Turbine and obtained a patent for this at a young age. This device is capable of lifting water without diesel or electricity, and hence its utility is even higher now with the emphasis on avoiding fossil fuels. Its effectiveness has been confirmed time and again by reputed experts, and a review committee (the Maithani Committee) appointed by the Ministry of Rural Development confirmed its great utility and recommended its use under various government schemes. Despite this, it has
remained badly neglected.

When this writer’s report on this invention received the coveted Cushrow Irani Award for Environmental Reporting and the report was widely circulated, it led to a revival of interest and some MPs also raised the issue. But all this could not break bureaucratic apathy and neglect towards such a significant example of the creativity of an ordinary villager.

The government needs to come out of such an apathetic attitude and encourage rural creativity at all levels because ecologically protective farming and biodiversity protection involve a highly decentralized approach based on local creativity that provide solutions suited to local conditions. Not only farmers, but landless households too should also be involved.

Attempts should be made to find at least small plots of farmland for the landless (for example, by imposing ceilings on farmland, by reclaiming cultivable land, or by finding land for raising indigenous mixed trees). At the same time, the landless should get the most opportunities in the wider greening efforts, including regeneration of degraded pastures, forests, and groves, with substantial allocations reserved for this. These initiatives, although centered on increasing green cover, can have smaller components of farming, dairy etc. as well add to livelihood support for the landless.

Food processing should be substantially in the hands of rural communities, led  by women and traditional communities involved in this work. This as well as public health, public education, information sector, crafts and arts plus eco-friendly tourism should get a big boost in rural areas, leading to diversified rural livelihoods.

Thus, with more such understanding and help, rural communities can protect their livelihoods well and at the same time ensure safe food for the world in difficult times, while also contributing much to checking and reducing climate change. Such efforts should get encouragement at the policy level. The main problem is that there are powerful forces that not only hinder such progress but by imposing their narrow agenda of huge profits and dominance, pushing us in the opposite direction of ecological ruin and disruption of farm and food systems.

This is where the biggest challenge lies. A democratic and well-informed dialogue can easily identify the path ahead, but the dominance of powerful forces hinders this, and hence the task becomes much more difficult. We stand today at the crossroads – one path has the potential of great improvements which rural communities can bring, while the other leads to the huge disruptions that powerful forces seem bent on unleashing.

The solutions cannot be simplistic – incorporating a little natural farming here or there. What is needed is an extensive change towards ecologically protective, natural, and healthy farming, based on a holistic and comprehensive understanding of the real needs of food and farming systems in times of climate change, and combining considerations of justice with those of ecology.

(The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Protect Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril and Protecting Earth for Children)