Agrarian Flux: Reexamining Traditional Agricultural Practices in the Context of Environmental Justice and Agroecology
Abstract
Agriculture has profoundly shaped human societies and ecosystems, sustaining life while simultaneously contributing to biodiversity loss and environmental degradation through chemical-intensive and standardized farming practices. This article explores the concept of "agrarian flux," a dynamic interplay of agricultural expansion, intensification, and abandonment, which has led to significant socio-ecological transformations. Focusing on Punjab, India, a region emblematic of the Green Revolution’s successes and failures, this study examines how modern farming practices have marginalized traditional knowledge, exacerbated ecological crises, and deepened social inequalities. Employing a mixed-methods approach, including ethnographic fieldwork the research highlights the need to integrate environmental justice and agroecological principles into agricultural systems. By addressing the socio-economic, cultural, and ecological dimensions of agrarian change, this article advocates for a paradigm shift toward sustainable, inclusive, and localized farming practices that prioritize food sovereignty and ecological resilience.
References
2. Altieri, M. A., & Toledo, V. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty, and empowering peasants. *The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38*(3), 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947
3. Bag, P. (2021). Myth and reality of sustainable development: View from a village. *Social Action, 66*, 22–36.
4. Bag, P. (2022). Cultural construction of Kalahandi’s droughts. *Journal of Social Sciences, 15*(1), 125–133.
5. Bag, P. (2023). Eco-famine: Understanding the link between women, environment, and food (in)security. *Journal of Social Issues, 25*, 21–28.
6. Bardhan, P. (1984). *Land, Labor, and Rural Poverty: Essays in Development Economics*. Columbia University Press.
7. Bernstein, H. (1996). How white agriculture (re)positioned itself for a “New South Africa.” *Critical Sociology, 22*(3), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/089692059602200302
8. Bhattacharya, N. (1985). Lenders and debtors: Punjab countryside, 1880–1940. *Studies in History, 1*(2), 305–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/025764308500100207
9. Deshpande, R. S., & Prabhu, N. (2005). Farmers’ distress: Proof beyond question. *Economic and Political Weekly, 40*(44/45), 4663–4665. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4417344
10. Dhanagare, D. N. (1983). *Peasant Movements in India: 1920–1950*. Oxford University Press.
11. Giraldo, O. F., & Rosset, P. M. (2017). Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. *The Journal of Peasant Studies, 45*(3), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496
12. Gliessman, S. (2018). Defining agroecology. *Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42*(6), 599–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1432329
13. Gupta, D. (1998). *Social Stratification*. Oxford University Press.
14. Holt-Giménez, E., Shattuck, A., & Van Lammeren, I. (2021). Thresholds of resistance: Agroecology, resilience, and the agrarian question. *The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48*(4), 715–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1847090
15. Indian Express. (2023, October 10). Tensions rise as Punjab eyes largest land acquisition across 158 villages. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/tensions-rise-as-punjab-eyes-largest-land-acquisition-across-158-villages-10096836/
16. Jewitt, S., & Baker, K. (2007). Evaluating 35 years of Green Revolution technology in villages of Bulandshahr district, western UP, North India. *The Journal of Development Studies, 43*(2), 312–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380601125180
17. Kinkaid, E. (2019). Embodied political ecology: Sensing agrarian change in North India. *Geoforum, 107*, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.10.007
18. Mailleux Sant’Ana, S. (2007). James C. Scott, *Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance*. *Variations, 153–156*. https://doi.org/10.4000/variations.486
19. Meek, D., & Khadse, A. (2020). Food sovereignty and farmer suicides: Bridging political ecologies of health and education. *The Journal of Peasant Studies, 49*(2), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1760248
20. NCRB. (2022). *Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India*. National Crime Records Bureau. https://www.ncrb.gov.in/accidental-deaths-suicides-in-india-year-wise.html
21. Patel, R. (2009). *The Value of Nothing: How to Reshape Market Society and Redefine Democracy*. Picador.
22. Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., & Wright, A. (2019). *Nature’s Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty* (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429028557
23. Pimbert, M. (2015). Agroecology as an alternative vision to conventional development and climate-smart agriculture. *Development, 58*, 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-016-0013-9
24. Pingali, P. L. (2012). Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109*(31), 12302–12308. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912953109
25. Sarkar, A., & Das, A. (2014). Groundwater irrigation-electricity-crop diversification nexus in Punjab: Trends, turning points, and policy initiatives. *Economic and Political Weekly, 49*(52), 64–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24481208
26. Scott, J. C. (1985). *Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance*. Yale University Press.
27. Sims, A., van der Pligt, P., John, P., Kaushal, J., Kaur, G., & McKay, F. H. (2021). Food insecurity and dietary intake among rural Indian women: An exploratory study. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18*(9), 4851. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094851
28. Tigchelaar, M., et al. (2022). The right to food: Linking ecology, livelihood, and cultural values. *Global Food Security, 34*, 100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100637
29. Tyagi, B. B., & Kumar, R. (2020). The future of farming: To what end and for what purpose? *Science, Technology and Society, 25*(2), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721820902966

