Specialization of Green Revolution.
Answers
Explanation:
5 Criticisms of the Green Revolution
Initially the Green Revolution was greeted with extravagant praise and high expectations. These were excessive, for it was unlikely that many farmers could reach the yields obtained on experimental farms, or that all farmers could profitably use the new techniques. A barrage of criticism followed to the present, although with changing targets. Controversy remains over the social and economic effects of the Green Revolution, nor is this surprising. There are three technical reasons why interpretations may differ. First, national and state statistics in India and other parts of Asia are not reliable and so different interpretations of changes are possible, particularly with reference to land tenure, farm size and labor. Second, it would be surprising if there were identical responses to new technology over such a vast area and population with greatly varying physical and socioeconomic environments. Third, research produces different results at different stages of the adoption cycle of agricultural innovations. It is unlikely that the consequences of technological change in the 1960s would be the same in the 1990s.
But there are other criticisms that are a result of the unequal distribution of farm sizes and land ownership. Early critics believed that the adoption of HYVs benefited the larger farmers most, often led small farmers to sell their land, increased landlessness, and forced down real wages. It was argued that while those with larger farms—and in most of Asia more than 20 acres is a large farm and most farmers have less than five acres—were able to rapidly adopt the new technology, and make considerable profits; smaller farmers were unable to do so and often sold their holdings to larger farmers, whilst many tenants were evicted to allow landowners to farm larger units. The number of landless households increased and so forced down real wages. In some areas the larger farmers adopted machinery to replace labor, and real incomes of the landless fell. Consequently income inequality increased.
These criticisms were made most fiercely in the early 1970s. At the time it was pointed out that many of these trends predated the ‘green revolution,’ or had alternative explanations. Machinery was being adopted before 1965, and rural population growth alone was sufficient to increase landlessness. Since then there have been more sample studies over longer periods (David and Otsuka 1993, Hazel and Ramasamy 1991). They have shown that small farmers have been able to adopt the new techniques, seed, and other inputs; that real wages have not fallen; and that the adoption of machinery has often been the result of farm laborers seeking higher paid jobs elsewhere. Other critics pointed out that the HYVs were only profitable in irrigated areas, and that improved varieties of only wheat and rice had been bred, yet in many parts of India farmers grew other cereal crops so that the benefits of the ‘green revolution’ occurred only in limited regions. This was true at that time, but subsequently modern varieties were bred that gave higher yields than traditional varieties in rainfed areas and with low amounts of fertilizer. Furthermore, high-yielding varieties of other crops have been bred: high-yielding maizes were bred in Kenya and Rhodesia before 1965, and now occupy half the African maize acreage, whilst in India high-yielding varieties of sorghum and millet have been bred. The early HYV rices had an inferior taste, and although subsequent varieties were of higher quality, richer consumers still prefer the taste of traditional varieties. Other critics were alarmed that the inputs for the new farms were imported, whilst some believed that that monoculture was replacing the diversity of cropping in traditional Asian farming, particularly the replacing of protein rich pulses with cereals.
By the 1990s new fears replaced these traditional concerns. Yields were—and still are—stagnating and even declining as a result of waterlogging and poor drainage in irrigated areas, whilst chemical pollution was becoming a problem. Falling cereal prices and rising costs are now threatening the future of cereal output, whilst Asia's population may increase by 53 percent by 2030. It may be that a new technological advance will be necessary to maintain Asia's freedom from famine that was the result of the ‘green revolution’ of the 1960s.
Explanation:
Ancient coins of the Yaudheyas, dated to 1st and 2nd century CE, show Kartikeya as a warrior with either one or six heads. Kushan coins show him with one head. In general, single head is far more common regardless of which dynasty minted them.[55] The earliest statues discovered in Punjab and Kashmir show him with either one or six heads. The oldest sculptures such as those found in Mathura show him with one head, while six head iconography is dated to post-Gupta Empire era.[56] All Kushan Empire era artwork show him with one head, even though there are Kushan deities such as a goddess who is shown with multiple heads.