History of Indian Extension

By:  Frank Brewer, CANR International Programs

Introduction

India has the second largest extension system in the world in terms of professional and technical staff.  According to recent estimates, India has more than 100,000 technical personnel in its extension system. India is in the process of transforming its agricultural extension and technology transfer systems to become more demand-driven and responsive to farmer needs.

Indian Extension System

Following independence in 1947, the Indian extension system concentrated on rural community development objectives, rather than having a strong agricultural focus.   However, during the food crisis of the 1960s, the government initiated several major agricultural development projects, such as the Intensive Agricultural District Program (IADP) and the development of farmer training centers.  During the same period, Green Revolution wheat and rice varieties were being tested throughout the country and in 1966 the Government of India imported high-yielding wheat seed from Mexico.  Given the urgency of this food crisis, the program focus of Gram Sevaks or Village Level Workers (VLWs) gave more emphasis to agricultural extension.   During this period, the Department of Agriculture, along with the other line departments such as Animal Husbandry, became involved in the distribution and sale of agricultural inputs and services.  Although the high yielding wheat and rice varieties had an immediate effect on yields, the lack of attention by both research and extension to the management practices limited the overall impact.

The training and visit (T&V) extension system was first introduced into India during 1974 through a World Bank irrigation project.  Given its focus on crop management practices, it had an immediate impact on wheat and rice yields.   Consequently, this extension approach was adopted throughout the country during the following decade.  Implementing T&V extension largely completed the transformation of the Indian agricultural extension system from a community development agency to one concentrating on technology transfer, especially for staple food crops.

Although the extension management system changed under T&V, the basic structure of extension at the district and village levels changed very little.  At the district level, there was a district extension officer (DEO), 3-4 subject matter specialists (SMS), plus other support staff.  Agricultural extension officers (AEOs), were assigned at the block level to supervise village extension workers (VEWs).  Under T&V projects, most states added large numbers of VEWs to achieve the recommended ratio of one VEW for approximately 800 farm households who would constitute an extension circle.   During the 1970s and 1980s, most of these VEWs were secondary school graduates who received in-service training provided under the World Bank financed project.  In the past decade, most new VEWs are university graduates.  Since SMS positions are filled on the basis of seniority, the technical expertise of this cadre remains weak.

When T&V projects were being implemented during the 1970s and 1980s, these projects generally financed the salaries of the new staff, especially the expanding VEW cadre, plus most program, travel, and operational costs associated with the T&V approach.   Once these projects were completed, then these additional salary costs shifted to the respective state government.  At this point, due to the lack of financial resources, in-service training programs and the regular schedule of fortnightly visits collapsed in most states.  Therefore, during the 1990s, extension's operating budget shrank to about 10% of recurrent costs, with the program budget being primarily financed through central government central projects and schemes. 

Analysis of Agricultural Productivity

Using five year running averages, from 1961 through 1998, wheat yields increased 5.5% annually in India.  In the case of rice, yields increased about 2.6% per year.   Irrigation and fertilizer are factors that might help explain changes in productivity.  Between 1961 and 1996, the percentage of irrigated land in India increased from about 15% to 35%.  Consequently, low cereal yields in India during the early 1960s might be partially explained by the lack of irrigation.

There are also political, socio-cultural, and economic factors that help explain crop productivity.  For example, price policy to support increases in agricultural productivity was generally positive in India.

Shortly after independence in the late 1940s, India undertook major land reforms.   Farmers received fee simple land titles.

There are also important socio-cultural differences that may explain agricultural productivity.  India's socio-cultural caste systems remains largely intact - a system that ascribes one's occupational and socio-cultural status within a community.   Therefore, there are significant differences among Indian farm households -- socio-economic factors that influence decision-making, the role of women, and access to resources, including technology.

In India, the average farmer effectively utilizes about 180-work days/year in farming, but the family's potential for off-farm employment is very low.  In addition, for socio-cultural reasons, few Indian women are engaged in off-farm employment.  In India, the literacy rate is 62%.  Adult literacy affects the capacity of farm households to access and use technical information in making management decisions.   Although nearly all children currently attend primary school, between 1980 and 1993, the primary teacher-student ratio has declined from 1:55 to 1:64 in India.

Analysis of the Indian Extension System

There are specific structural, resource, and policies of the national extension system that contribute to overall productivity.  Some are as follows:

1. Extension agent--farmer ratio.  In India, this ratio is estimated at 1:2,000.
2. Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs).  Most districts in India have fewer than 10 SMSs and these positions are viewed as stepping stones in the career ladder rather than permanent technical posts.
3. Extension Methods and Techniques.  Over the past two decades, India has relied on the T&V approach involving fortnightly visits to groups of contact farmers within each village.  However, with the completion of T&V projects in the early 1990s, both VEW training and fortnightly visits have been largely discontinued due to the lack of operating funds.
4. Program Development and Financing.  In India, the state government finances most extension salaries and basic operating costs, but nearly all program funds come from the central government.  These funds come in the form of special projects, frequently involving the demonstration or distribution of subsidized inputs.  Therefore, program decisions are largely centralized with little accountability to local farmers and other stakeholders.
5. Extension Mission.  Following the food crisis in India during the 1960s and the introduction of T&V extension in the mid-1970s, technology transfer has also played an increasingly important role in the Indian extension system.  At the same time, however, the technical capacity of the Indian extension system has never been particularly strong, both in terms of the SMS and VEW cadres.  In the future, VEWs will be assigned to work under the local Panchayat or village-level government; therefore, they will likely become more general-purpose VEWs, as was the case under the community development extension.

Extension Strategies for the 21st Century

A primary goal of most governments is how to reduce investment in agricultural extension while maintaining food security.  India is reducing its public investment in agricultural extension.

India is in the process of privatizing its input system to improve farmer access to purchased inputs and to create a more efficient input supply system.  At the same time, it is recognized that salaries for the large number of extension staff that were added during T&V projects have tied up all available operating funds.  The only way of making more program funds available to support extension program activities is through staff reduction.  Therefore, India can be expected to reduce it VEW cadre as the older, poorer trained, extension staff members leave the extension system through normal attrition.  In the process, the Indian extension system will likely shift its attention to pressing natural resource management problems, such as soil and water conservation and integrated pest management, while leaving the task of transferring crop management technologies to private sector dealers.

All of these trends can be expected to make extension and the overall technology transfer system more demand-driven and responsive to farmer needs.  Organizing farmers empowers them and allows farmers to more effectively articulate their problems and needs to the research-extension system.  Privatizing the input supply system increases its efficiency as well as farmer access to improved technology.  India is experimenting with a new organizational mechanism that will decentralize decision-making to the district and block levels and, thereby, increase the extension staff's accountability to local stakeholders.  If this model is successful, then program development will become more "bottom-up" and responsive to local needs.

Home Search

Last modified: February 17, 2000