Three types of experiments were carried out in colonial India that made a long-term impact on the future of agrarian modernization in sovereign India. One was the colonial state’s investment in irrigation canals that spurred the rise of three distinct agrarian regions. The agriculture in these regions was supported by a new wave of scientism in colonial policy in the early twentieth century as the colonial state utilized Mendelian science to develop and propagate better varieties of wheat in north India. Towards the end of colonial rule, the colonialists also experimented with a project of intensification wherein select districts were provided concentrated inputs to raise yield. On the margins of colonial patterns, the American missionaries set up an agricultural institute in the United Provinces that experimented with rural uplift through a program of teaching, research, and low-cost innovations. This program did not just showcase an alternate program in rural modernization in the colony, but also served as a precursor to the import of Americanist agrarian ideals into India after independence.

The agricultural practices associated with the green revolution assumed their fullest form in the state of Punjab and are commonly associated with the launch of HYVs in 1964-66. But in reality, Punjab had been undergoing a process of agrarian transformations for a long time. Punjab developed as the subcontinent’s most productive agrarian region during colonial times. Though the partition disrupted the region’s agricultural infrastructures, the state embarked upon a massive phase of rebuilding under the leadership of a handful of bureaucrats with a technocratic vision. These efforts were tailored to build a system of productive agriculture to restore the province’s pre-partition preeminence. The pursuit of productivity trumped every other agenda in Punjab and a spell of regional technocracy took hold. The American experts arriving under the Indo-US treaties and those sent over by the American foundations believed that the modernization of Indian agriculture must start from Punjab. When the HYVs arrived, Punjab was readier than any other region.

Development scholars have honed their theories on notions of state-led programs and projects in which the subjects of development are mere recipients of state bequest under elitist planning and implementation. In contrast, the nationwide community development project launched in India in 1952 under the umbrella of the Indo-US treaty of technological cooperation aspired to build participation in planning and development from below. This bureaucracy-led program envisioned instilling a “will to improve” among communities. The notion of “community” had a wide currency in India at a time when refugees from Pakistan were streaming into the nation after partition and officials were engaged in the conjoined task of organizing refugees and organizing rural populace into productive communities. The program was laced with technocratic principles of communitarian sociology. While the program met the metrics of development in the initial pilots, the nationwide spread of community blocks seemed to languish, calling into question the program’s principles and methods.

In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the political elites tried out land reform as a viable, competing strategy of agrarian modernization. This was an alternate vision of modernization rooted in the freedom movement that put trust in creating a land of healthy peasant proprietorship where efficient, productive cultivators would produce for the market. This reform-based approach came to be personified by a regional peasant leader, Chaudhary Charan Singh. Meanwhile, as part of the Indo-US treaty of 1954, the American land grants helped set up India’s very first agricultural university in the state, the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural University (or UPAU). The new agriculture university showcased a technological approach to enhancement of yield. The central state introduced a new program of productive agriculture around Mexican HYVs in 1964-66 and partnered with the technocrats at UPAU to help facilitate its spread in the state. Charan Singh broke ranks with the Congress party in 1967 whose government at the center was the sponsor of the HYV-program.

The current understandings of the green revolution are captive to short-term analyses that focus on the introduction of the new technology of high yielding variety seeds (HYVs) under a new agricultural strategy in 1964-66. Such a perspective cannot account for the fact hiding in plain sight that HYVs were progressively introduced into other areas on the subcontinent where they did not succeed. This book instead embeds the green revolution into a history of agrarian modernization patterns in three sub-regions of north India. It considers the colonial past, the post-independence rebuilding programs, and the wider influence of global forces of modernization to account for the birth of the green revolution.

I integrate qualitative and quantitative evidence to shed light on the reversal in resource mobilization effectiveness between the CCP and the KMT. I show that the Sino-Japanese War fundamentally shifts the comparative advantages of party mobilization infrastructures of these two parties. The Japanese occupation significantly weakened the KMT by undermining the economic elites upon whom its elite mobilization infrastructure relied. Meanwhile, the CCP was able to take advantage of its mass mobilization infrastructure in rural areas to respond to the wartime fiscal shocks. At the point when both parties were forced to extract grains as an alternative source of revenue after 1941 to address rising fiscal demand, my research uncovers a surprising pattern: the CCP developed a significantly stronger capacity for grain mobilization than the KMT. I demonstrate that the CCP employed its grassroots party organization to mobilize compliance in the peasantry, maintaining popular support even in the face of a significantly higher degree of extraction. The KMT, by contrast, relied on local elites for grain extraction, which generated regressive taxation and corruption, stirring mass resentment despite a lower grain burden.