Last month, we presented in a rather descriptive manner the challenge India was facing on the food security front and showed that it was bound to be more acute in the coming decades because of the growth of its population as well as the legacy of the Green Revolution (including monoculture and water stress), the impact of selective minimum support prices and climate change.
We will now address the quest for solutions, by summarising, once again, the ideas featured in detail in our Institut Montaigne note on the subject. When we look for solutions, various categories of thought emerge immediately. Some of them can be seen as reforms (aiming at improving agricultural production, availability of products and access to these products), whereas one of them amounts to a more revolutionary move: the development of agroecological farming.
Improving agricultural production, availability and access to food
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.
Agricultural production can be optimised in several ways to address not only undernutrition but also malnutrition, which is inter alia is crucial given the strong links between poor diet quality, undernutrition, and the early onset of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), which is a looming public health crisis, especially among the structurally excluded majority (lower socioeconomic groups) of the Indian population.
First, an effort towards diversification could be undertaken to escape the trap of monocultures inherited from the Green Revolution and, in particular, to revive the cultivation of millets (with recognised nutritional virtues) and especially pulses which are produced and consumed in quantities too small to effectively combat under- or malnutrition. Concerning the latter, the plan proposed by the committee led by Arvind Subramanian in 2015 could be revisited. One of the recommendations was for the state to provide producers with a guaranteed price – referred to as the Minimum Support Price (MSP) – that is sufficiently remunerative to incentivise investment in this crop, similar to the system in place for rice and wheat, where the state purchases half of the production. Some years later, such as in 2018-19, this policy was followed and bore fruit, but this financial effort is marginal today. The committee also recommended the ban on exports of pulses, which was, however, lifted in 2017.
Irrigation, which still only concerns a minority of cultivated land (where farmers can therefore only make one to two harvests per year) can be developed, no longer solely (nor even primarily) by creating canals subject to high evaporation or by digging wells (as groundwater is being depleted), but by reviving traditional forms of rainwater collection through reservoirs and wells with wide margins to maximise collection.
In parallel, water-intensive crops like maize, rice, and sugarcane must be replaced by others, such as millets, which would make the development of irrigation less necessary. Reducing the area dedicated to export crops like rice would also make it possible to produce the fodder needed by livestock – which might otherwise be fed with food that could be intended for human consumption.
The growth of livestock farming must in any case be limited, not only for this reason but also because of its effects on climate change. Dissuasive prices could be applied in the state-managed wholesale markets.
To help the peasants to cope with climate change, the Manual of Drought Management needs to be revised again: in 2016, the Ministry of Agriculture changed the Union government policy, making it much more difficult for the state governments to declare a drought.
The supply of foodstuffs can be improved both quantitatively and qualitatively by modernising the conditions of product conservation in two ways: the cold chain, which is very deficient – or even almost nonexistent – could be developed through both the installation of cold rooms and the use of refrigerated trucks, and food stocks can easily be kept dry, preventing the spoilage of tons of grains, something that has occurred in the recent past. Exports of certain products should be suspended as long as the Indian population is not fully fed. This is particularly the case with pulses. Limiting meat exports would also be a way to discourage farmers from investing in livestock, which is a large consumer of fodder. By design, reducing meat exports from India could increase the availability of meat for domestic consumption, particularly for poorer populations subject to socio-cultural constraints.
Also read: It’s Not Just Food Price, India Is Facing a Food Security Challenge
Addressing mass poverty, which leaves the poorest unable to meet their basic nutritional needs, is a top priority here. India had embarked on this path at the beginning of the century, thanks in particular to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, which had lifted millions of people out of poverty and/or given them access to more substantial food. The policy of the Modi government has reversed this trend. The budget for MGNREGA should be tripled to return to its level in 2007-08.
The Public Distribution System (PDS), renovated as a part of the National Food Security Act (2013), must regain the means to offer cheap food to the poor. While the Narendra Modi government, during the COVID-19 crisis had doubled the food ration of 800 million Indians, in 2022, the decline in production mentioned above compromised this program when the government announced that it would more than halve the quantities of wheat available in the PDS, the main instrument of food aid in India. Modi suspended this decision in late 2023 because of the extreme vulnerability of the poor. Yet, the government failed to apply the NFSA because it did not adjust the number of the PDS beneficiaries according to the population data: first the government said it was waiting for the census, but no census was organised in 2021, the year when it should have taken place. The Supreme Court asked the government to take steps to re-determine the number of people covered by the NFSA in June 2021, to no avail: the government said it will wait for the next census.
The PDS can be made more efficient by adding more millet, pulses, fruits, and vegetables to rice and wheat which currently make up the bulk of the food rations today.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
Enhancing children’s nutrition can be achieved by systematizing the mid-day meal programs. Initially implemented in southern states, this policy was officially extended nationwide following a directive from the Supreme Court. However, the number of beneficiaries has been declining in many states due to the growing enrollment of children in private schools, where mid-day meal programs are not offered. To address this issue, the program should be expanded to include private schools as well.
To restore purchasing power to the countryside while the terms of trade deteriorate in favour of cities, increasing the “minimum support prices” set by the government is a convenient solution, even if it means subsidising the commodities put on the market to spare poor urban consumers.
The market(s)’ question needs to be addressed. The committees managing agricultural markets, known as agricultural produce market committees (APMC), were created to protect farmers against middlemen who might not buy their products at a fair price. They have recently been accused by the government of harming the efficiency of the sector. However, the three farm acts promoted by the government in 2020-21 did not provide an acceptable solution to the farmers since they intended to deregulate the sector in favour of large agro-food firms. Farmers protested for a year near Delhi and forced the Modi government to back down. These reforms would have made them more vulnerable vis-à-vis big business players like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani who are investing in retail, without much regulation. Nevertheless, the state should help small farmers gain market access and a reform is certainly needed.
The issue of trade in agricultural products also arises at the international level. If India limits its exports of pulses, rice, and meat as recommended above, and if it lowers tariffs on imports of commodities it needs most, such as pulses, it will have to compensate for this loss of revenue. This compensation could come from international aid that India refuses today – particularly from the World Food Programme.
India is faced with the famous food dilemma of finding it difficult to choose between “cheap imports” to feed consumers, but at the expense of national agriculture, or protectionism that helps producers but penalises consumers. Frédéric Landy points out that the country has not decided between these two options and acts on a case-by-case basis. Today, the government of Modi tends to increase imports to lower the prices of certain foodstuffs to preserve the purchasing power of urban residents, the core of its electorate. This policy would need to be corrected to offer farmers more remunerative prices.
On the export side, following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the Westerners (starting with the European Union) have pressured the World Trade Organisation for India to continue supplying the global market with agricultural products to contain the price rise and in the name of market logic. India has resisted these pressures. In 2020, the EU and India began trade negotiations aiming to conclude a free trade agreement, and the context arising from the war in Ukraine will undoubtedly weigh on the discussions. Already, the Minister of Commerce, Piyush Goyal, has assured farmers that he will be able to defend their interests and protect, in particular, dairy producers.
Agroecology: The long-term solution
Besides the very important reform mentioned above, a structural change may well be the only long term response to the food security challenge India is facing – and will have to cope with even more acutely in the future: the development of agroecology. One state, Andhra Pradesh has already initiated substantial reforms to promote this alternative type of agriculture. Other regional examples (like the state of Sikkim) or even local experiences could also be mentioned.
The agroecology alternative is a response to the environmental and social consequences of the Green Revolution which include (1) the depletion of soil nutrients leading to reduced soil productivity because of monoculture and the overuse of pesticides, and (2) the rise of farming costs and debts forcing farmers to sell their land and to abandon agriculture – or even to commit suicide.
As a response to this unsustainable conventional model of agriculture, many initiatives emerged from all over India, including in Maharashtra where Subhash Palekar pioneered the Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in the 1990s. His farming technique, based on a combination of natural elements, aimed to enhance microbial activity in soil, boost soil carbon, add nitrogen via green mulching, and improve nitrogen availability in the surface soil. They also emphasise the use of natural inputs and, when possible, indigenous seed varieties.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty
In 2015, the Andhra Pradesh government took significant steps to institutionalise, further innovate and scale up Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) across the state. This policy was entrusted to the Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS, the ‘farmers empowerment corporation’), a government-backed entity tasked with implementing the Climate Resilient Zero Budget Natural Farming programme. RySS’s mandate included educating farmers and facilitating peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. The programme began as an experiment involving more than 700 villages and 40,650 farmers in 2016. By March 2020, the programme had seen substantial growth, with 623,300 farmers participating, accounting for 10% of all the state’s farmers. It covered nearly 3% of Andhra Pradesh’s total net sown area, amounting to 181,600 hectares. Looking forward, the state’s ambition is to extend what became in 2020 the Andhra-Pradesh Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF) to all 6 million farmer families, covering 8 million hectares of land by 2027. While this model has garnered coverage and interest globally, it also sparked debates regarding the sustainability of natural farming in providing long-term food security for a populous nation such as India.
The RYSS-CIRAD-FAO AgroEco2050 participative foresight project (2019-2023) studied two contrasting scenarios for Andhra Pradesh by 2050: the intensification of conventional industrial agriculture and food (scenario IA), and the 100% generalisation of agroecology with natural farming (scenario NF). The agro-industrial model refers to conventional farming with intensive use of chemicals, larger specialised farm sizes with economies of scale, stronger oligopolies of input suppliers and buyers, and increased degradation of human and environmental health. On the other hand, the agroecological model is based on women self-help groups, natural farming principles, reliance on organic fertilizers and pesticides, low water and energy requirements, small farm sizes, and indigenous knowledge with both community and scientific support.
The AgroEco2050 foresight platform worked with: (1) these two contrasting narratives or “sociotechnical regimes”; (2) an Indian expert group of about 30 people including scientists from different disciplines, policymakers, NGOs and farmers’ representatives; (3) a macro-bioeconomic model, Agribiom-India. It investigated and interlinked four dimensions of the agri-food system:
- Land use
- Population and employment
- Economic growth, income and inequality
- Yield and production of plant food calories.
By 2050, under the industrial agriculture scenario, there would be a reduction in the area of land cultivated, from 6.2 million hectares to 5.5 million hectares, with few monocultures and an emphasis on the most efficiently irrigated regions. By contrast, in the agroecological scenario, the area of cultivated land is projected to expand to 8.3 million hectares by the year-round regeneration and cultivation of 2.8 million hectares of land left fallow by industrial agriculture, especially in semi-arid zones.
Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.
By 2050, Andhra Pradesh’s population is expected to reach 59.5 million, with those aged between 20 and 63-years old numbering 35.4 million. If the industrial agriculture model persists, the 2019 unemployment rate of 30% for the 20-64 age group would not change, and the farming population would halve, dropping from 9.3 million to 5.0 million. On the other hand, in the natural farming (NF) scenario, 10 million small-scale farmers would enhance their livelihoods through natural farming, which would reduce the unemployment rate in the 20-64 age demographic to 7%.
Under the natural farming scenario, the Gross Value Added (GVA) of agriculture and allied activities is expected to increase by 6% annually, surpassing the 4% annual growth recorded between 1980 and 2019. This anticipated growth is primarily due to the extensive involvement of both land and farmers in natural farming techniques, alongside significant savings in agricultural input costs such as seeds, irrigation systems, chemical fertilizers, fossil energy, financial credit, and machinery. Additionally, the market is likely to assign higher values to food products that are safe and nutritious, stemming from natural farming practices. On-farm value-added activities, which include small-scale processing and packaging, as well as the development of agrotourism, are also expected to contribute to this growth. Consequently, these improvements in the agricultural sector are projected to spur general economic growth, potentially increasing it by 6.5% per annum. This growth is anticipated to lead to broader economic benefits, including reductions in unemployment and inequality, and contribute to the overall well-being of the population, resulting in a healthier and happier society compared to the scenario with industrial agriculture.
In the industrial agriculture scenario, the yield of a limited number of monocrops is projected to continue on its historical trajectory, despite potential adverse effects on farmers’ livelihoods, environmental resources, and the health of consumers. In contrast, the natural farming (NF) approach might result in a somewhat lower increase in food yield, but it promises a production that is more nutritionally diverse — richer in both macronutrients and micronutrients, as well as fibres — and produced without the use of any chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. The per capita plant food production, when considering both yield and the extent of cultivated area, is expected to be substantially higher in an agroecological scenario, amounting to 5008 kilocalories per day per inhabitant. This is in contrast to an industrial agriculture system, where the figure stands at 4054 kilocalories per day per inhabitant.
In summary, achieving food security in India necessitates a comprehensive strategy that integrates both immediate and long-term solutions. The adoption of agroecological farming, alongside reforms in crop diversification, irrigation, and market policies, offers a sustainable pathway to enhancing agricultural productivity while preserving environmental resources. Additionally, strengthening the Public Distribution System, revisiting social welfare programmes like MGNREGA, and expanding nutritional initiatives for children are critical steps to ensure that all citizens, especially the most vulnerable, have consistent access to adequate and nutritious food. This holistic approach not only addresses the current challenges but also lays a resilient foundation for India’s future food security. It relies on existing, promising initiatives which have been tested at the local or state level by innovative and entrepreneurial experts and agriculturalists.
Christophe Jaffrelot is research director at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Professor of Politics and Sociology at King’s College London and Non Resident Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His publications include Modi’s India: Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy, Princeton University Press, 2021, and Gujarat under Modi: Laboratory of today’s India, Hurst, 2024, both of which are published in India by Westland.
Hemal Thakker is an environment policy expert specialising in Agriculture Policy and Energy Transition, currently serving as an Adjunct Professor at Sciences Po, and formerly worked with the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food).
Vignesh Rajahmani is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow of Indian and Indonesian Politics at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies, Leiden, and a Research Affiliate, at the King’s India Institute, King’s College London.
