22 November 2022

MAINS QUESTIONSà DAILY QUESTIONS & MODEL ANSWERS

Q1. The Green Revolution and the benefits that flowed from it aided in the transformation of India’s economy from one of food scarcity to one of food surplus. It did, however, have its limitations. Analyse. (250 words)

 Paper & Topic: GS I – Post Independence India

 Model Answer:

Introduction:

• The green revolution in India, pioneered by M.S Swaminathan in the 1960s and 1970s, was a period when Indian agriculture was transformed into an industrial system through the application of contemporary methods and technology such as HYV seeds, tractors, irrigation, pesticides, and fertilisers. According to the Economic Survey 2015-16, Indian agriculture has become cereal-centric, regionally biassed, and input-intensive as a result of its own success—especially the green revolution (land, water and fertilizers).

Body:

• In a nutshell, India’s Green Revolution resulted in a significant rise in agricultural production and productivity, as well as a reduction in food-grain imports. Agriculture’s ties to industry have been strengthened by the adoption of new technology and modernization. Farmers prospered as a result of rural employment.

Green Revolution’s Limitations:

• Focus on Food Grains Only: While all food grains, such as wheat, rice, jowar, bajra, and maize, have benefited from the revolution, other crops, such as coarse cereals, pulses, and oilseeds, have been left out.
• Cotton, jute, tea, and sugarcane, among other economic crops, were mostly unaffected by the Green Revolution.
• Monocropping became a harmful tendency as a result of this.

HYVP Coverage Is Limited:

• Only five crops were included in the High Yielding Variety Program (HYVP): wheat, rice, jowar, bajra, and maize.
• As a result, non-food grains were left out of the new strategy’s scope.
• It resulted in significant regional differences in economic development at both the inter- and intra-regional levels.
• Only 40% of the overall cultivated area benefited, while the rest remained unaffected.
• Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh in the north, and Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in the south, are the areas that have benefited the most.
• It has largely avoided Assam, Bihar, West Bengal, and Orissa, as well as dry and semi-arid portions of Western and Southern India.
• Only those areas that were previously well off in terms of agriculture benefited from the Green Revolution, resulting in even greater regional inequities.
• Synthetic fertilisers and pesticides are widely used: The Green Revolution resulted in widespread use of insecticides and synthetic nitrogen fertilisers for irrigation projects and crop types.
• However, there was little or no attempt made to educate the farmers, who were primarily illiterate, about the increased risk connected with pesticide use.
• This harmed crops more than it helped them, and it also polluted the environment and soil.
• Water Consumption: During the green revolution, water-intensive crops were introduced.
• Cereals, for example, accounted for nearly half of the dietary water footprint.
• Canal systems were introduced, and irrigation pumps drained groundwater to provide water-intensive crops like sugarcane and rice, depleting groundwater levels in the process.
• Punjab, for example, is a significant wheat and rice-growing region, making it one of India’s most water-scarce regions.

Impacts on Crop Production and Soil:

• The soil’s nutrients were depleted as a result of repeated crop cycles in order to ensure higher crop yield.
• Farmers boosted fertiliser use to match the demands of new types of seeds.
• Because of the use of these alkaline compounds, the pH of the soil has risen.
• Toxic substances in the soil wiped off helpful pathogens, resulting in a decrease in output.
• Farm mechanisation under the Green Revolution resulted in widespread unemployment among agricultural labourers in rural areas, with the exception of Punjab and to a lesser extent Haryana.
• The poor and landless labourers were the hardest hit.
• Health Risks:
• Phosphamidon, Methomyl, Phorate, Triazophos, and Monocrotophos, among other chemical fertilisers and pesticides, have been linked to a range of serious ailments, including cancer, renal failure, stillbirth, and birth deformities.

Conclusion:

• The Green Revolution, which unmistakably put an end to the country’s “ship-to-mouth” life and turned it into a rice and wheat exporter. Despite its negative consequences, the green revolution’s success cannot be overlooked. The green revolution’s spillover impact resulted in the creation of farm mechanisation companies, which provided tractors, fertiliser and pesticides, and agro-based industries, among other things.
• However, it has resulted in uneven agricultural expansion, resulting in regional and other inequities. India’s agriculture is suffering as a result of periodic droughts. As a result, a second green revolution is required. The second green revolution must be an Evergreen Revolution, in which technology is used in a way that is environmentally friendly.

Q2. What circumstances contributed to the nationalisation of banks? Examine the impact on job generation and economic development. (250 words)

 Paper & Topic: GS I – Post Independence India

 Model Answer:

Introduction:

• Since midnight on July 19, 1969, India has seen more than 50 years of bank nationalisation. It began with the nationalisation of 14 major lenders, which accounted for 85 percent of bank deposits in the country at the time, under then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. In 1980, six more banks were nationalised. The primary goal of nationalisation was to re-energize priority industries at a period when huge corporations dominated credit profiles.

Body:

Factors and causes that led to bank nationalisation:

• Despite the Banking Regulation Act of 1949, banks gave loans to rural areas and small scale borrowers at a far lower rate than the rest of the sector.
• Agriculture credit was neglected: Between 1951 and 1968, commercial bank loans to industry virtually doubled, from 34 to 68 percent, while agriculture received less than 2%. The government of the time considered that banks were failing to serve its socioeconomic goals and that it needed to exert greater control over them.
• Banking expansion: The goal was to ensure that the bank’s services reached unserved and underserved communities, particularly in the distant hinterland. This would result in a degree of formalisation of the economy.
• Savings mobilisation: The goal of nationalisation was to mobilise as much of the people’s savings as possible and put them to constructive use.
• Economic and political reasons: One of Indira Gandhi’s reactions to the economic and political issues of the period was to nationalise banks.
• Two wars, for example, with China in 1962 and Pakistan in 1965, put enormous strain on the government’s resources.
• Droughts in two consecutive years had not only resulted in food shortages, but they had also jeopardised national security.
• The major goal was to reduce regional imbalance and enhance lending to priority sectors.

Impact on job creation and economic development:

• Increased Savings: As lenders launched new branches in previously unbanked areas, financial savings increased. In the 1970s, gross domestic savings as a percentage of national income nearly doubled.
• Improved bank efficiency: The banking sector in India has become more efficient as a result of bank nationalisation. The public’s trust in banks was also boosted as a result of this.
• Small-scale industry and agriculture gained a boost: Small-scale industries and agriculture, which were lagging behind, got a boost. This resulted in a rise in funds and, as a result, increased India’s economic growth.
• Bank penetration: Bank nationalisation resulted in greater bank penetration. This was mostly observed in India’s rural areas.
• Financial inclusion: Following India’s nationalisation, the financial intermediation industry grew rapidly.
• The proportion of bank deposits in GDP increased from 13% in 1969 to 38% in 1991. From 12.8 percent in 1969 to 21.7 percent in 1990, the gross savings rate increased.
• The contribution of advancements to GDP increased from 10% in 1969 to 25% in 1991. From 13.9 percent in 1969 to 24.1 percent in 1990, the gross investment rate increased.
• Nationalization also highlighted the value of monetary policy in achieving redistributive objectives.
• Banks’ reach grew: they were no longer limited to India’s metropolitan and cosmopolitan areas. In reality, the Indian banking system has spread throughout the country, even to the most rural areas.
• Green Revolution: One of the key causes for India’s growth, notably during the Green Revolution, is the Green Revolution. It improved India’s food security by lowering the country’s reliance on food grain imports.

Nationalization of banks has a negative consequence:

• Bad loans: Following nationalisation, some banks were losing money.
• This is due to the fact that banks make loans without requiring enough security. Loan recovery was inadequate, resulting in losses.
• Inefficiency: The banking sector developed a bureaucratic attitude as a result of bank nationalisation. Within the public sector banks, there was no duty, accountability, or motivation for it to advance. Within these banks, unjustified delays had become the new norm.
• Long-term risks: While liberal credit is vital for rural India’s growth, it has had negative consequences for the banking sector’s stability. Overdue debts and the development of economically unviable branches are now an issue for nationalised banks.
• Political Intervention: Another constraint of nationalised commercial banks was an increase in political interference in loan approvals, bank personnel appointments, and branch openings, among other things.
• Inadequate Services: Nationalized commercial banks have failed to provide suitable facilities and services to the rural and suburban populations. Rural deposits were not mobilised by banks.
• Despite the fact that the government was partially successful in pursuing its developmental programme through the banking sector, many Indians did not gain from the nationalisation of banks.

Conclusion:

• In the 1970s, when economic growth barely surpassed population growth and typical incomes remained stagnant, bank nationalisation was at the heart of a broader political economy plan. For India, it was a lost decade. Exogenous shocks, such as increased energy prices or failed monsoons, undoubtedly contributed to the standstill, but economic policy also had a role. Because of the quick development of branches, bank nationalisation was successful in some areas, such as financial deepening, but it now has to be reconsidered.

Q3. What factors contributed to the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War? Explain why India became involved in the liberation of Bangladesh battle. (250 words)

 Paper & Topic: GS I – Post Independence India

 Model Answer:

Introduction:

• The “last-minute” process by which the British were able to win agreement over how independence would be achieved was “partition,” the division of British India into the two distinct states of India and Pakistan on August 14-15, 1947. Few individuals realised what Partition would mean or what its consequences would be at the time, and the massive migration that followed caught the vast majority of contemporaries off guard.

Body:

Factors that contributed to India’s split include:

• Divide and Rule: The British had used a divide-and-rule strategy in India as colonisers.
• People were classified by religion in the census, and they were seen and treated as separate from one another.
• They were also concerned about a possible danger from the Muslims, who had ruled the subcontinent for more than 300 years under the Mughal Empire.
• British Separation of Muslims:
• To win them over, the British assisted in the establishment of the Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College at Aligarh and backed the All-India Muslim Conference, both of which produced leaders of the Muslim League and the ideology of Pakistan.
• Muslims were given their own electorate as soon as the league was created.
• As a result, the political process in India was designed to keep Muslims distinct.
• Communal politics: Some academics view Partition as the conclusion of a communal politics that began in the first decades of the twentieth century.
• They argue that distinct Muslim electorates, established by the colonial authority in 1909 and expanded in 1919, had a significant impact on communal politics.
• Ideological divide: In India, there was an ideological difference between Muslims and Hindus.
• While India had strong sense of nationalism, by the late nineteenth century, the country had also seen communal disputes and movements centred on religious identities rather than class or regional ones.
• Tablighi, Tanzim, Shuddhi, and Sangathan are all socio-religious movements aiming at targeting Hindu and Muslim religious emotions.
• Hindu revivalists had a part in widening the gulf between the two countries. They were enraged at the Muslims’ previous reign over India.
• Hindu revivalists protested for a ban on the killing of cows, which Muslims use as a cheap source of meat.
• They also intended to switch the official script from Persian to Hindu Devanagari, effectively making Hindi the main contender for the national language rather than Urdu.
• Policy blunders in Congress:
• The Congress made various policy failures that convinced the League that living in a united India after independence from colonial authority would be impossible since their interests would be fully crushed.
• One such policy was the forced singing of “Bande Mataram,” a national song historically associated with anti-Muslim sentiment, in Indian schools by Muslim youngsters.
• Government policies in the United Kingdom:
• In the August Offer of 1940, the British took a pro-Muslim League stance.
• The Cripps Mission’s failure and recognition of the province’s autonomy as a Muslim majority province
• The League’s demands were indirectly served by the Shimla Conference’s failure.
• The Cabinet Mission put the icing on the cake. Jinnah’s severe Direct Action Day followed, culminating in the Mountbatten Plan 1947.

Partition, on the other hand, may have been avoided:

• If the Congress’s long-term inability to engage the Muslim masses in the national cause and halt the raging waves of Muslim communalism, which had been raging with growing ferocity since 1937, had been overcome.
• If the common people had realised the Britishers’ ill-intent to please one community over the other, things would have been different.
• If communal organisations such as the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League had been rigorously dealt with.

Conclusion:

• “The short-sightedness of Congress, Jinnah’s aspirations, and Britain’s amorality and cynicism had made partition inevitable,” writes prominent historian Ramachandra Guha. In retrospect, the partition process could have been handled more effectively, resulting in fewer deaths and tragic tragedies, as well as improved relations between India and Pakistan.