Monday, December 8, 2025

The curse of 'productivity' as a metric

In agriculture, we have made ‘productivity’ as the single most important metric which has created an imagination of and a narrative for agriculture. It has created a sense of efficiency, a common metric for comparison across crops, varieties and resource use.


The word has fuelled the idea of monocultures and mass production. I never realised that a narrative around the word could have such an impact! So powerful that the imagination - the word ‘productivity’ created and shaped the agriculture in such a short time of its existence.

The discourse is an example of the dominance of ‘codified knowledge system’ over the ‘local and contextual knowledge systems’ of the farmers/communities. The dominance of modern science over tried and tested community knowledge systems, and systematic dissipation of the community science as archaic and unscientific.

Farmers revered and boasted of the diversity of crop varieties, they produced different varieties for different needs for example – different varieties of paddy for different kind of lands and water availability, for different dishes (of different sizes and fragrances), for straw for thatching, etc. etc. ‘Productivity’ neutralises all such dimensions of choices, just relates to quintals/unit of land, litres/Kgs of crop produces or Rs/Kgs of crop produced. ‘Productivity’ flattens diverse characteristics - into something that “doesn’t count” because it cannot be easily measured.

Most mixed cropping systems like Navdhanya (nine grains) or Baranaja (twelve grains) have been displaced, mixed cropping systems that include trees on bunds have disappeared. Shade of trees have become curse to productivity. Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand - once known for trees in the farm have visibility of several kilometres. We are converting shifting cultivation lands (that have 15-30 crops on the plot) into monoculture plantations. Uncultivated food crops have also disappeared. Water-use has intensified.

The single mindedness of promoting ‘Productivity’ has brought in the economic dimension as the determinant and pushed out the concepts of the orientation of resilience, regeneration, ecological balance, diversity, and slowly that of stewardship, culture and dignity.

Nature regenerates, rests, replenishes, and functions in cycles.

The article from Down to Earth (https://www.downtoearth.org.in/forests/the-trees-we-dont-count-how-indias-vanishing-farmland-canopy-weakens-climate-resilience) triggered penning down some of the thoughts brewing over sometime.

Sunday, January 5, 2025

Scaling Community Stewardship

When we talk about scaling, we usually discuss about scaling activities or set of processes or use of tools and technology to undertake tasks at scale. When we need to look at scaling the governance challenges, we need unique approaches towards solving such approaches - there are three pillars, as elaborated below:


Pillar-1: Villages and their institutions which conserve, protect and govern natural resources. They are institutions (that are closest to individuals) that believe in deliberative democracy and consensus.

Pillar-2: The villages and their institutions are nested within the larger design of Panchayati Raj. They being structures as representative democracy, which thrives on the strength it gains from the functioning of the village institutions.

Pillar-3: The ground level functionaries form the third pillar, which can help strengthening the system, anchoring different functions and supporting the democratic institutional forms. They are key to the unit level processes.



Scaling of Community Stewardship should ideally be a combination of the three pillars functioning in tandem with each other. Engaging with such a process has the capacity to strengthen grassroot democracy and governance of resources.


Suggestions and criticism on the same are welcome!