Transformational Agroecology: The Making and Unmaking of Zero Budget Natural Farming in India

Abstract

Agroecology is increasingly seen to have the potential to transform agriculture towards sustainability and social justice. Recent studies have highlighted different characteristics and principles of such transformative agroecology. Scholars have also shown that agroecology practices can be scaled up to achieve broader transformation. However, the process of systematising approaches to transformative agroecology often creates a static vision of transformation, which could be achieved once and for all. The static view creates illusionary binaries of goods and bads of agroecology that separate the ideological scholarly view from everyday, contested and messy practices. In this article, we discuss the case of Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in India to argue that transformational agroecology is made and unmade repeatedly at different sites, networks and practices it gets entangled in. As a result, rather than thinking of transformative agroecology as a goal or target to be achieved, it is more useful to see it as an everyday struggle requiring unwavering scrutiny with a commitment to care for the marginal concerns.

Keywords

Agroecology zero-budget natural farming transformation knowledge politics

Introduction

Agroecology has rapidly emerged worldwide as a potential pathway to address the challenges created by Green Revolution and industrial agri-food systems. For social movements and grassroots organisations, agroecology offers a mechanism for emancipatory transformation of knowledge production, practice and organisation of agri-food systems towards food sovereignty (Giraldo & Rosset, 2023; Levidow et al., 2014; Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018). In scholarly literature on post-growth, agroecology is often presented as an emblematic precursor of post-growth ideas and practices (Smith & Ely, this issue; Pazaitis et al., this issue). Recently, many multilateral organisations and national governments that have been steering the direction of agricultural policy, have recognised agroecology as a valid strategy for addressing the challenges of contemporary agriculture (Giraldo & Rosset, 2018). For instance, since 2014, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has organised multiple regional seminars on agroecology in different parts of the world. The ‘Agroecology Knowledge Hub’ of FAO aims to define and ‘scale agroecology to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, n.d.-a). FAO has also facilitated a consultation process that culminated in the development of the ‘10 elements of agroecology’ (FAO, 2018). Later, the High-level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) turned these ten elements into thirteen operational principles for guiding agroecological food system changes (HLPE, 2019). These initiatives mark a significant step towards integrating agroecology into mainstream policy.

In the process of mainstreaming, different versions of agroecology are created, some of which offer a narrow interpretation of sustainability, for example, sustainable intensification, climate-smart agriculture and conservation agriculture (Levidow et al., 2014). Grassroots groups and scholars have raised concerns about this co-optation and instrumentalisation of agroecology, which strips away its transformational potential. The Declaration of Nyéléni (2015, p. 2), emerging out of the International Forum for Agroecology, describes this phenomenon as follows:

They [dominant agri-food regime] have tried to redefine it [agroecology] as a narrow set of technologies, to offer some tools that appear to ease the sustainability crisis of industrial food production, while the existing structures of power remain unchallenged. This co-optation of agroecology to fine-tune the industrial food system, while paying lip service to the environmental discourse, has various names, including ‘climate smart agriculture’, ‘sustainable-’ or ‘ecological-intensification’, industrial monoculture production of ‘organic’ food, etc. For us, these are not agroecology: we reject them, and we will fight to expose and block this insidious appropriation of agroecology.

The compromise on transformative characteristics that confront established power structures is a core ideological and material challenge that emerges in relation to scaling up of alternatives (Bhaduri & Talat, 2020; Smith et al., 2014). Research in the domain of grassroots and frugal innovation has unpacked the tension between scaling and retaining local transformative potential (Bhaduri & Talat, 2020; Smith et al., 2014). In the context of the post-growth debate, Colombo et al. (2023) studied alternative organisations to argue that rather than scaling up, these organisations employ different mechanisms of scaling to ensure that transformative aspects of alternative initiatives remain in focus. In the case of agroecology, scholars have studied agroecological movements to identify key characteristics that enable scale-up (Giraldo & McCune, 2019; Khadse et al., 2018; Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018). Scholarly work has also focused on developing theoretical frameworks that distinguish emancipatory agroecologies from reformist and status quoists (Giraldo & Rosset, 2023). These contributions are very useful in demonstrating characteristics of agroecology as desired and mobilised by social movements and their allies. However, they fall short in presenting the messy encounters and tensions that ensue when different versions of agroecology are enacted (Law & Mol 2008; Mol, 2002). This understanding creates an illusion that transformational agroecology is a static domain and a goal that could be achieved once and for all. In this article, we argue that transformational agroecology is constantly being made, unmade and remade through a knowledge politics that unfolds around different issues, sites and temporalities. An engagement with the different makings and unmakings of agroecology is, therefore, crucial for empowering their transformational capabilities while avoiding their mobilisation as silver bullet solutions (Giraldo & Rosset, 2018; Martínez-Torres & Rosset, 2014).

In this article, we will engage with the making, unmaking and remaking of one such agroecological initiative—Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF). In India, the concept of ZBNF has gathered national and international recognition (FAO, 2021; Press Information Bureau (PIB), 2022). ZBNF entails minimal use of external inputs and a low-cost route to enhancing farming productivity and income (Government of India, 2021). ZBNF is being promoted by the government of India across multiple regions under its Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojna¹ (PKVY) with the aim ‘to bring down input costs by exclusion of synthetic chemical inputs and promotion of on-farm biomass recycling’ (PIB, 2022). FAO defines ZBNF as ‘an agro-ecological alternative based on modern and traditional practices that mitigates the consequences of climate change’ (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, n.d.-b). Yet, both versions of ZBNF are being criticised by some civil society actors and scholars for being anti-farmer and status quoist (Abrol, 2023; Ramdas & Pimbert, 2024; Saldanha, 2018). In this context of contested meanings and motives, we ask, How is ZBNF assembled (made) to engage with different aspects of the current agri-food systems crisis? What are the reasons and factors that lead to its unmaking? And what does this making and unmaking mean for transformational agroecology?

Building from science and technology studies (STS) and developmental discourse, we employ a knowledge politics lens to engage with the making² and unmaking of ZBNF and examine its transformative potential (Bijker, 2017; Law & Mol, 2008; Mol, 2002; Pandey & Sharma, 2021; Scoones, 2006).

The project started in February 2021 (after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic) with a focus on understanding alternative models to Green Revolution agriculture practiced by farmers. Interviews were conducted with practitioners of alternative agriculture in Punjab (10 farmers and 2 civil society activists). ZBNF was discussed by three farmers who attended the events organised by Subhas Palekar (2013). As the second wave of the pandemic hit, an alternative strategy was required to understand ZBNF. Along with a lot of written material (academic papers, reports, news articles), numerous videos on ZBNF principles and practices were available on the Internet for public access. These videos are provided by different actors and organisations, including journalists, farmers and civil society groups. The content of the videos includes presentations, discussions and field visits of the farmer training schools conducted on ZBNF, farmers’ testimonies on ZBNF, interviews of leaders/champions on ZBNF, farmers’ meetings and model farm demonstrations. Given the richness of the video material and our limited access to the field, we decided to use the video material as the primary source of raw data along the methodological principles of digital ethnography (Paoli & D’Auria, 2021; Strangelove, 2010). The interview data was added to the video analysis. Later, we conducted two (online) interviews with activists involved with ZBNF to support our claims from the video analysis. In total, more than thirty hours of video data (in English, Hindi, Punjabi and Marathi languages) were studied to substantiate the arguments of this article.³ Overall, the data collection process lasted for more than three years (from February 2021 to August 2024) with continuing updates on the ongoing debate and new online material on ZBNF.

This article is organised as follows. The next section outlines our main analytical concepts: the knowledge politics of transformation in agri-food systems. Using these concepts, the third section examines the making and unmaking of ZBNF in India. The fourth section presents the conclusions.

The Knowledge Politics of Transformation in Agri-food Systems

Contextualising Transformation

Over the past decades, transformation has been a recurring theme in scholarly and political debates (Brand, 2016; Patterson et al., 2017; Scoones et al., 2020). Recently, the term has been employed in UN SDG agenda 2030 and the fifth assessment report of IPCC (Blythe et al., 2018). As a consequence of modernist, anthropocentric interventions, multiple challenges have emerged globally, in the form of climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental pollution and rising agri-food system inequality and inequity (HLPE, 2019). The call for transformation is often situated in these contexts, demanding a diverse range of interventions ranging from incremental changes to radical rethinking of our social, economic and political worlds (Brand, 2016; Patterson et al., 2017). The terms ‘transitions’ and ‘transformations’ are often used interchangeably (Escobar, 2015; Tschersich et al., 2023), and there seems to be a lack of consensus about a common definition of transformation in discourse and practice (Escobar, 2015; Feola, 2015). Amid the interpretive flexibility of the term, some authors have developed a functional heuristic where transitions are seen as ‘intentional reorganizations of individual subsystems towards specific, previously defined goals, which are often assumed to be manageable. Transformations, by contrast, are more complex and fundamental, occur over longer time-periods and are generally considered as emergent processes’ (Sievers-Glotzbach & Tschersich, 2019, p. 3). Scoones et al. (2020) identify three ways to understand transformations through social agency: systemic, structural and enabling approaches. They note that transitions, often driven by policies and technological innovations (Geels, 2010), are just one way to think about transformations through instrumental and systemic changes. The structural approach, rooted in Marxist theory, calls for profound changes in societal organisation, exemplified by degrowth debates demanding a radical re-organisation for dignified living (Chertkovskaya et al., 2019; D’Alisa et al., 2014). Enabling approaches focus on underlying values, agency and grassroots movements driving change (Scoones & Stirling, 2020). Ultimately, as Scoones et al. (2020) suggest, all three approaches are essential for achieving socially just and sustainable transformations. What does this way of understanding transformation mean for contemporary agri-food systems?

Transformation in Agri-food Systems

The epic project of modernisation of agriculture, and agri-food systems more broadly, has long been underway (Cabral et al., 2022; Harwood, 2012; Patel, 2013). This project has been successful in promoting extensive use of modern technological inputs, consolidation and monopolisation of agri-food value chains and bumper productions of food. Modernisation has become a mechanism of continuously enrolling farmers and regions in capitalist modes of production (Culather, 2010; Harwood, 2019; Patel, 2013; Tilzey, 2024). Simultaneously, this modernisation project has resulted in ecological damage through over-exploitation and commodification of natural and genetic resources and climate change (Grey & Patel, 2015). The institutionalisation of agricultural knowledge and monopolisation and internationally controlled agri-food value chains has resulted in increasing the vulnerability of agrarian-rural societies through deskilling, demotivation, de-peasantisation and dispossession (Pandey, 2020; Pandey et al., 2021; Shiva, 1993; Stone, 2022). Thus, the aims of agri-food systems’ transformations are intricately linked to farmers’ empowerment and sovereignty and environmental sustainability.

Most discourses on agri-food sustainability (inspired by systemic changes) rely heavily on technological innovations and policy changes while rarely engaging in disentangling agri-food systems from the embrace of capitalist regimes supplied through modernising narratives (McGreevy et al., 2022). Those advocating for structural changes have argued that a radical movement is needed to transform agri-food systems towards ecological re-invigoration and social justice that includes nutritious and accessible food and dignified livelihoods for all (Gerber, 2020; McGreevy et al., 2022). Food sovereignty, as the right of the producers and consumers to democratically decide on food production and consumption, indicates a radical transformation pathway towards farmers’ autonomy (Borras, 2023). Social movements advocating for food sovereignty, such as La Via Campesina, have acquired the status of a radical, international peasant movement from below, aligning with the enabling approaches of transformation. However, a focus only on structural changes in terms of production and consumption and reliance on systemic apparatus such as policies and the language of legal rights appears limited in realising the enabling approaches to transformation discussed above. In order to realise food sovereignty as a decolonial, anti-capitalist, gender and social justice project, questions of identity, relationality, dissent and care should be addressed (Calvario & Desmarais, 2023; Gerber, 2020; Grey & Patel, 2015; McGreevy et al., 2022).

Agroecology as ‘a science, a movement, and a practice’ (Wezel et al., 2009) has been taken up by social movements and grassroots organisations, as a way forward for food sovereignty towards more equitable agriculture that combines ecological with social justice principles and goals (Holt-Giménez & Altieri, 2013; Rosset & Altieri, 2017). Anderson et al. (2019, p. 2) argue that agroecology ‘represents a transformative vision and practice’ that has the potential to deliver on sustainability and social justice by pushing for radical breaks with established regimes of power through the empowerment of marginalised actors and practices. Scholarly work has identified different mechanisms through which transformative agroecology can be defined, mobilised and scaled (Giraldo & Rosset, 2023; Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018). Anderson et al. (2019) identifies ‘domains of transformation’ through agroecology built on enabling conditions and barriers to transformative change. Enabling conditions include: respecting and harnessing the knowledge of farmers, indigenous peoples, women and others in conditions of marginalisation, supporting inclusive knowledge production and learning, and using participatory and transdisciplinary methods that ‘shift power away from professional experts’ (p. 9). Barriers include: centralised, top-down and colonial systems of research and technological transfer that marginalise and delegitimise certain ways of knowing, profit-led research agendas and reductionist metrics focused solely on crop yields and profit margins. Giraldo and Rosset (2023) developed a theoretical framework (with seven principles) that can be useful in distinguishing emancipatory agroecologies from reformists and neo-liberal agroecologies. Similarly, Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al. (2018, p. 1) examined agroecological initiatives from around the world to identify characteristics common for ‘bringing agroecology to scale’ (Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018).⁴ In the process of creating these distinct characterisations, often the messy encounters of different values and practices that continuously make and remake transformational agroecology are sidelined. To ensure that enabling conditions are encouraged and barriers reduced, it is crucial to pay attention to the knowledge politics that (un)makes agroecology a domain of everyday contestations on transformation.

The Knowledge Politics of Transformational Agroecology

Broadly understood, knowledge is a complex interplay of values, experiences and practices that enables people to make choices and take actions (Pandey & Sharma, 2021). Knowledge, however, is seldom universal. What qualifies as valid knowledge and ways of knowing (epistemology) is deeply rooted in a person’s worldview (ontology) (Pandey & Sharma, 2021; Valkenburg et al., 2020). The diversity in positions and claims to valid knowledge often leads to tensions and challenges. Knowledge politics is the power contingent process involving contestation, subversion, co-optation, dialogue, negotiation and much more. There could be various issues, sites and temporalities around which the politics of knowledge unfolds. For example, the issue inviting contestation could be the questions of what counts as transformational agroecology (or ZBNF), who decides and on what grounds? Who benefits and who loses with certain meanings of transformational agroecology (or ZBNF)? These questions around agroecology may enter knowledge politics at different sites of meaning making and circulation, including, for example, the Declaration of Nyéléni, the agroecology hub of FAO, scientific reports and publication, public discussion forums and farmer training schools. The temporal aspects of knowledge politics highlight that transformation cannot be seen as a taken-for-granted, static and fixed domain or a goal in itself (Schiavoni, 2017). Rather, it is an everyday practice in cultivating ethico-political commitment to care for marginal concerns and empowerment of marginal groups (Pandey & Sharma, 2021; Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017; Valkenburg et al., 2020). A commitment to care enables capacity and agency for navigating mundane, local and messy terrains of transformation. Collectively, the issues, sites and temporalities of knowledge (onto-epistemological) politics result in the making, unmaking and remaking of transformational agroecology (in our case ZBNF).

In this article, we engage with four sites where the knowledge politics of transformational agroecology unfolds around issues that (un)make ZBNF: (a) At the grassroots, where ZBNF was assembled; (b) at the social movement, where ZBNF was rehearsed as a transformative agroecological movement; (c) at the scientific discussions and reports, where the scientific knowledge claims make ZBNF non-scientific; and (d) at the civil society debates, where ZBNF is criticised for being exclusionary (and at odds with transformational agroecology).

The Making of ZBNF as Transformational Agroecology

Assembling ZBNF as an Alternative to the Green Revolution

By the late 1970s, Green Revolution as a package of practices, technologies and policy had become a dominant agricultural model in India. However, by the mid-1980s the challenges posed by Green Revolution started becoming more apparent. These challenges became acute in rain-fed areas and small farms. The vulnerability of farmers drove many into debts forcing them to either leave agriculture or even commit suicide (Gill & Singh, 2006). In addition to the grave challenges posed to environmental sustainability (in terms of declining soil health and over-exploitation of resources such as ground water), the rise in input costs became a major issue that contributed to the enduring crisis of agriculture in India (Gill & Singh, 2006; Meek & Khadse, 2022; Shah, 2012). Many farmers started looking for alternatives, and several grassroots experiments emerged during this time. Some experiments were more individualised and localised while others became widespread⁵ (Dabholkar, 2011; Mansata, 2010; Singh & Jardhari, 2001). ZBNF was assembled in such a context, as an experiment by an agricultural graduate Subhas Palekar that centred on a natural way of farming. Palekar has described his moment of revelation as follows:

I am an agricultural graduate. After returning from university, I started farming on my paternal land using the Green Revolution model. Between 1973 to 1985 I was getting best results using this model, but afterwards the yields started to decline. When I took this up to my Professor in the University, he smiled and said—you need to increase the inputs. Which means I must add more and new fertilizers and pesticides and keep buying new seeds. After some time, I started to realise that I cannot go on like this. This motivated me to pursue alternatives to the Green Revolution model. (Multiversity Gurukul, 2017)

Along with learning from his own experiences, Palekar talks about learning from the vulnerabilities of farmers around him that have either left agriculture or have committed suicide while practicing the Green Revolution model of agriculture. He asserts:

Based on the understanding gathered from 1500 farmers’ suicides, I believe there are a combination of five reasons that lead to suicides, these are—increasing debts from loans, natural calamities, market systems, policies of the governments, and dowry. (Multiversity Gurukul, 2017)

Palekar developed the technology and philosophy of ZBNF through research and experimentation, over a twelve-year period, between 1985 to 1997. The philosophy and principles of ZBNF were drawn from ancient Indian Vedic philosophy, Palekar’s understanding of science and traditional agricultural practices in an effort to combine science and spirituality (Münster, 2016). He describes ZBNF as spiritual farming that values ‘nature as God’ and builds on developing a harmonious relationship with different life forms and a sense of gratitude for the nature. In one of his speeches, he says:

If one looks at the forest eco-system there are no deficiencies or interventions by humans. It is a healthy, happy self-sustaining system. Nature doesn’t send a bill of expenses to the forest. ZBNF is based on the principles of harmony with all life forms. Nature nourishes and nurtures everyone and so nature is mother and nature is God. But to practice this, the farmers’ have to first become the ‘saint protector’ rather than the ‘demon destroyer’ of nature. (Natures Voice, 2018; Patra, 2013)

It is worth noting that the turn to nature and spirituality that Palekar describes has been experienced elsewhere by other leading figures associated with alternatives to conventional agriculture. Cabral and Sumberg (2022) document similar awakening processes by Masanobu Fukuoka (considered the father of natural farming) in Japan and Wes Jackson (the father of natural systems agriculture) in the United States. While eccentric and a little bizarre, these origin stories centred on fatherly figures create powerful narratives that become central in claiming legitimacy and universal relevance and can be deployed to influence debates and mobilise resources. The origin story of ZBNF centred on Palekar has both symbolic and material power.

Palekar’s initial experiments with natural farming in his native village did not immediately lead to support for his methods from the local farming community (Arya, 2019). The initial reduction in productivity demotivated many farmers to seriously consider his methods. As a result, Palekar left his native village and started travelling in different parts of India to learn from renowned agriculturalists such as Bhaskar Save (Shah & Mansata, 2019). After years of learning and experimenting, a toolkit for ZBNF was developed that brought together different ways of improving agricultural production with the focus on minimum to zero expenditure on external inputs. According to this toolkit, there are four core aspects to the method and practice of ZBNF: Bijamrita (seed treatment), Jivamrita (soil treatment), Wapasha (soil aeration) and Acchadana (mulching). Bijamrita and Jivamrita are microbial cultures that are prepared using cow dung, jaggery, flour and other ingredients, to activate seeds and the soil, respectively. Wapasha and Acchadana are mechanisms of improving soil fertility by efficient aeration and incorporation of plant residues, respectively. Bijamrita also protects the seeds and young roots from soil borne microbial diseases (Khadse et al., 2018). Along with these four core elements, ZBNF also uses natural pesticides made in the farmers’ fields using local ingredients for pest management. As mentioned in many of his speeches, the success of ZBNF also depends on developing a forest eco-system with five layers of a wide diversity of complementary plant species. He often encourages farmers wanting to transition to ZBNF to build a forest ecosystem on at least one acre of the farmland (SPK, 2023). The combination of the activity of diverse life forms working in harmony creates a self-sustaining ecosystem with minimum input requirement (reducing expenditure on advanced machines, fertilisers and pesticides). Recent studies have reported that ZBNF has proven useful in improving the well-being of farmers (Meek & Khadse, 2022). ZBNF is, thus, assembled as a combination of ideologies and practices alternative to GR.

ZBNF as an Agroecological Movement

According to different accounts, more than one million farmers are practicing ZBNF in India (Das et al., 2024). The popularity of ZBNF can be attributed to local farmer organisations and the transnational peasant movement La Via Campesina (2015), which played a key role in designating ZBNF as an agroecological movement (Giraldo & Rosset, 2023; Khadse et al., 2018; Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018).

In their study of scaling-up of agroecological initiatives, Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al. (2018) argue that external allies are central to turning grassroots initiatives into mass movements. This is also true in the case of ZBNF. Since the late 1990s, ZBNF spread as a grassroots initiative with the help of local leaders, enthusiastic individuals and pioneer farmers (who championed ZBNF and benefitted from it) in the states of Maharashtra, Kerela and Andhra Pradesh (Khadse et al., 2018; Münster, 2016; Veluguri et al., 2021). Of particular significance here is the role of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangh (KRRS), an Indian farmers movement, which has a broader reach and a long history of protest and resistance against corporate control of agriculture (Scoones, 2006).

Assembled as an alternative to the Green Revolution and corporate agriculture, an alliance with KRRS (which is also a member of La Via Campesina) played a central role in situating ZBNF in the global discourse of agroecology. This alliance resulted in making of ZBNF as an ‘agro-ecological approach that advocates growing crops in harmony with nature’ (Khadse et al., 2018, p. 3). In 2015, KRRS, in collaboration with La Via Campesina and Subhas Palekar, co-organised an international agroecological school on ZBNF. The agroecological school expressed its commitment to farmers’ sovereignty and was attended by forty farmers and activists from ten countries and four continents (La Via Campesina, 2015). Subsequently, over the years, hundreds of farmer training schools have been organised by Palekar in collaboration with KRRS and other farmer organisations (La Via Campesina, 2023). These training schools along with the embedding of ZBNF in global agroecological discourse contributed in making and rehearsing of ZBNF as an agroecological social movement.

The Unmaking of ZBNF as Transformational Agroecology

For almost two decades, ZBNF spread among small and middle land-holding peasants as a rural, counter-hegemonic movement (Khadse et al., 2018). Recently, however, ZBNF has attracted wider national and international recognition as a model for sustainable agriculture, resulting in its integration in multiple agricultural policy programs (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, n.d.-c).

In 2016, the government of Andhra Pradesh became the first state agency to announce a programme for the rolling-out of ZBNF to six million farmers by 2024. Following this model, eight state governments in India have so far adopted ZBNF under their natural farming schemes (PIB, 2022). The current Indian prime minister has called for the incorporation of ancient knowledge into the modern scientific frame and making ZBNF a Jan Andolan, that is, a peoples’ movement (GoI, 2021). The government of India also recognised Palekar’s contributions in the field of agriculture and decorated him with the highest civilian award—the Padma Shri (NITI Aayog, 2021). Subsequently, taking it to national scale, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare in India added ZBNF to its programme on doubling farmers’ income (PIB, 2021). As discussed in the introductory section, ZBNF also made its way to the agroecology hub of FAO.

Institutionalised through integration into national and international agricultural programmes, this scaling-up of ZBNF remade it into a technocratic, policy-led, centrally implemented approach towards sustainable agricultural transitions (Bharucha et al., 2020). Many of the state-led programmes created so far detached ZBNF from its spiritual and political core, turning it into a technocratic approach led by the promoters of Green Revolution and corporate farming (Ramdas & Pimbert, 2024). The technocratic remaking of ZBNF can be attributed to politics of knowledge at two sites: the reports and public comments of scientists criticising the science of ZBNF and the public debates among various CSOs criticising the exclusionary politics of ZBNF.

Contested Science Question and the Unmaking of ZBNF

The critique of the dominant models of agricultural science and technology associated with the Green Revolution and corporate agri-food systems is among the core concerns uniting agroecological and food sovereignty movements (Altieri, 2018; Giraldo & Rosset, 2023; Nyéléni, 2015). This critique is based on experiences of marginal and indigenous communities as well as the long-standing critical scholarly work (Baranski, 2022; Chambers, 1994; Patel, 2013; Harwood, 2019; Shiva, 1993; Stone, 2022). Yet, all alternatives to dominant models face contestation based on the science question (Spaling & Van der Kouy, 2019; Scoones, 2006). While some approaches call for a possibility of complementarity between established agri-tech and agroecology (Ditzler & Driessen, 2022), others assert that such synergy is impossible on philosophical, ideological and material grounds (Giraldo & Rosset, 2023; Nyéléni, 2015; Sullivan, 2023). ZBNF, too, is subjected to a critical scrutiny, where the science question of agroecology is hotly contested. The science question is deeply entangled with the question of whose knowledge counts and what accounts for legitimate science and technology (Pandey & Sharma, 2021; Scoones, 2006).

Despite being a science graduate himself, Palekar is an avid critic of conventional agricultural universities and their input-centric worldviews. Palekar attributes the plights of farmers to the market-centric models of Green Revolution and organic farming that rely on ‘making farmers and the mother Earth addicted to external inputs’ (Multiversity Gurukul, 2017). Yet, he never disregards methods and tools of science and technology. To the contrary, he repeatedly draws from agronomic sciences to explain his reasoning and philosophy of building a relationship of care between humans and non-humans (Münster, 2018; Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017). The language of experimentation, claim making and verification of these claims form a core framework for his speeches. The model farms in different parts of India, developed by farmers practicing ZBNF, are part of field visits in Palekar’s workshops providing evidence of ‘believing by seeing’. Farmers practicing ZBNF repeatedly invoke the language of evidence, productivity and profit, as well as well-being, satisfaction and self-reliance in the same repertoire. As an exercise of trust building, ZBNF farmers share their phone numbers to encourage other farmers for exchange and interaction. For example, in the farmer-to-farmer exchange meetings in ZBNF workshops, a farmer addressed other attendees as follows:

Please note my mobile number. This number is the same for the past 15 years, you can call me anytime. I have been practicing ZBNF for the past 22 years and have drawn a lot of production and profit. But ZBNF is not about profit. It is about happiness, satisfaction, and self-reliance. (AGRIBOZ, 2022)

By employing different ‘registers of sense-making’ (Heuts & Mol, 2013) be it science, spirituality, political ecology and/or religion, Palekar and ZBNF practitioners mobilise a worldview, where all these ideas and positions are valid and constantly negotiating and co-habiting. Through these processes, the practitioners of ZBNF decentre the authority of scientists and formal agricultural institutions as the producers of valid knowledge.

The claims and practices of ZBNF practitioners are contested through various scientific reports and publications that negate the claims of productivity and low input in ZBNF (Das et al., 2024; Kumar et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2020). The National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), one of the nodal agricultural institutions, brought forward a report that had strong objections on the methods and claims of ZBNF on the grounds of scientific incompetence (NAAS, 2019). In a ritualistic rehearsal of the epic of Green Revolution (Cabral et al., 2022), the report builds on Malthusian spectres of future projections of hunger, normal professionalism⁶ (Chambers, 1988) and celebration of the success of modern agriculture to designate ZBNF as a ‘myth and not a reality as it is not supported by any science led information’ (NAAS, 2019, p. 14). The report further warns that

[T]he Academy strongly feels that it shall be the biggest undoing of the phenomenal success achieved by Indian Agriculture, if all the production zones of the country were to adopt ZBNF. (NAAS, 2019, p. 16)

Of the many objections raised by the seventy-member expert committee, not using the Green Revolution package of external inputs appeared as the biggest fault propagated by ZBNF. The report states:

[W]e need to emphasise that India’s agricultural success has essentially been due to the quality seed of new improved varieties/breeds replaced periodically as and when newer varieties are bred along with appropriate input management. (NAAS, 2019, p. 14)

As a way forward, the committee proposes to re-establish scientific autonomy in agriculture by

utilize all the modern tools and techniques at the disposal of the scientists to evolve eco-friendly climate-smart and cost-effective management strategies. (NAAS, 2019, p. 15)

This report, thus, becomes a site of knowledge politics and boundary making about whose knowledge counts, what are the tools and mechanisms of establishing valid knowledge and who counts as an expert in agricultural knowledge production. Employing science as a tool for politics, the report also delineates what counts as national interest and welfare of the people and what are the mechanisms through which these can be achieved. Consequently, the report unmakes ZBNF as a valid path for agriculture in the interest of farmers, consumers or the economy.

The politics unfolding around the science question and unmaking of ZBNF has translated into unmaking and remaking of ZBNF in two different ways. One, attributes such as less dependence on external inputs, farmers’ autonomy from modern institutions and focus on spiritual understanding of farming are removed to make way for a top-down, science-based, expert-centric model that is closely tied to the productive cycles of neoliberal capitalism (Abrol, 2023). These reformist approaches are seen in state and central governments’ programmes on agroecology. Second, bogged down by repetitive invocations of proving validity for the claims of ZBNF by scientific institutions, Palekar has renamed ZBNF as Subhas Palekar Spiritual Farming. For Palekar, this transformation enables him to ensure that he is not made accountable for the claims of different kinds of other natural farming practices that he has not developed. At the same time, an emphasis on ‘spiritual’ ensures that a core commitment to deeper connections with non-humans and nature remains central to this vision of farming (Singh, 2022).

The Moral Landscape of Agroecological Politics and the Unmaking of ZBNF

Embracing diversity in practices and organisation and the demand to transform power structures are important characteristics of emancipatory agroecologies (Giraldo & Rosset, 2023). ZBNF stood firm in challenging the dominant institutions such as agricultural universities, Western science and corporate control of agricultural inputs. However, it failed to embrace diversity in its progressive ideology and practices. In fact, a lot of rhetoric and tactics of Subhas Palekar’s speeches build on creating sharp contradictions, distinctions, exclusions and absolutes. For example, in all his speeches, mainstream organic farming is referred to as ‘foreign conspiracies’ that promote and sell ‘demonic substances (such as pesticides, fertilizers and vermicompost)’ (Münster, 2018, p. 754). The shock of the critique is often followed by recuperation and remedies in the form of absolutist principles of Vedic philosophy and practices of ZBNF. Münster (2018) argues that the coordinated performance of critique and recuperation is an onto-epistemic political move to create space within the competitive landscape of alternative agriculture. While most of the farmers (even from different faiths) tinker, recalibrate and repurpose Palekar’s philosophy and methods for their own context, these claims turn counter-productive in the moral landscape of agroecological politics.

One notable instance where Palekar’s speech created substantial controversy was his labelling of organic agriculture as ‘worse than the atom bomb’ (Times of India, 2019). The statement received huge criticisms from various civil society groups and prominent agroecology and food sovereignty activists (Das et al., 2024). Different digital platforms published open letters demanding an explanation and democratic debate on Palekar’s position and unsubstantiated claims on organic agriculture along three lines (Kuruganti, 2019; Shah & Mansata, 2019). First, activists argued that Palekar should clear his position on organic agriculture if he rejects the corporate co-optation of organic agriculture or the entire possibilities of agricultural practices within the broad umbrella of organic farming. Second, the critiques asserted that ‘agroecology is about diversity and not establishing supremacy of one prescribed set of practices’ as happened in the case of Green Revolution. There is no one-size-fits-all, and different agroecological practices have and should learn from each other (Kuruganti, 2019). Farmers should be able to access a ‘basket-of-choices’ rather than a ‘package of practices’ (Chambers, 2019). Third, activists expressed concerns that the divisive strategy of Palekar might damage the authenticity of the movement of chemical-free farming that is able to create pressure on the government towards progressive change (through various programmes under the Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojna).⁷

A failure to embrace the diversity of agroecological practices and the exclusionary politics of downplaying collective legacies resulted in unmaking of ZBNF as inclusive, progressive and collective movement.

Conclusion

Scholarly work has offered useful insights into scaling up agroecology as a movement and practice (Khadse et al., 2018; Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018). However, a majority of the times, this work ends up presenting the exemplary cases as inherently transformational, masking internal as well as external tensions, negotiations and conflicts. Engaging with the messy practices (ideological and material) of making and unmaking can be a useful exercise in understanding how transformational agroecology is dynamically constituted at local sites. In this article, taking the case of ZBNF in India, we focused on four sites where the knowledge politics of transformational agroecology unfolds. These sites are the spaces where the ideology and practices of transformational agroecology are constantly negotiated. The making, unmaking and remaking of ZBNF is a dynamic and fluid process. ZBNF was made as a transformational agroecological movement through various practices unfolding mainly at two sites. One is at the grassroots level, where ZBNF presented useful alternative to farmers facing challenges created by the Green Revolution. The ideology and practices of re-invigorating spiritual aspects of agriculture, knowledge making through on-site experimentation and learning assembled ZBNF into a grassroots initiative alternative to the Green Revolution model. Second is at the site of interaction with big farmer movements such as KRRS and La Via Campesina. The building of alliances through the shared critique of the dominant models coupled with multiple national and international farmer training schools rehearsed ZBNF as an agroecological movement.

However, the transformational status of ZBNF is not fixed but rather contingent on further encounters with relevant actors at different sites. This article discussed that the transformational and progressive aspects of ZBNF were challenged at two sites. First is at the site of scientific discussion and reports. ZBNF is repeatedly subjected to interrogation by scientists from dominant institutions. Bearing on its authority as a dominant agricultural knowledge-making body, the 2019 NAAS report on ZBNF discredited ZBNF as a scientific and reliable method to pursue agriculture in national interests. The report portrayed ZBNF as a collection of traditional practices that might endanger the food security and well-being of the people. Second is at the site of civil society debates, where ZBNF was unmade as a progressive and inclusive initiative. The attempts of Subhas Palekar to standardise ZBNF practices as rigid prescriptions and a failure to embrace and appreciate the diversity of agroecological practices made ZBNF a subject of severe criticism from parallel agroecological movements. These critiques led to the making of ZBNF as monopolistic and exclusive. Taken together, these unmakings of ZBNF deteriorate its credibility and challenged its standing as a transformational agroecological movement. The loss in credibility enabled the possibilities for modification and remaking of ZBNF. As of now, ZBNF has been remade and renamed into different programmes supported by the government.⁸ These programmes have stripped away the spiritual component of ZBNF to make it fitting to the existing models of state-supported agriculture. Parallelly, amid critique and co-optation, Subhas Palekar himself has rechristened his initiative as Subhas Palekar Spiritual Farming (SPSF).

In conclusion, focus on the making, unmaking and remaking of ZBNF reminds us that transformative agroecology is not a target or a goal that can be achieved once and for all. Rather, it is an ethico-political commitment to care for the marginalised by paying attention to the knowledge politics that unfolds at multiple sites and through everyday practices.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The first author acknowledges the support of Maria Zambrano fellowship during the writing phase of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: Both authors acknowledge the funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, in the United Kingdom, grant reference ES/R00658X/1.

Notes

References

Abrol

(2023). Agroecology and agrarian transitions: Current debate in India. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy, 12(2), 161–186.

AGRIBOZ. (2022, May 10). Interview with SPNF farmer Madhukar ji: Subhash Palekar natural farming [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfSe15UOliY

Altieri

M. A.

(2018). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. CRC Press.

Anderson

C. R.

, Bruil

, Chappell

M. J.

, Kiss

, & Pimbert

M. P.

(2019). From transition to domains of transformation: Getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology. Sustainability, 11(5272), 1–28. https://doi.org.10.3390/su11195272

Arya

(2019, July 11). Zero response to Zero Budget Farming in Palekar’s native village. Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/zero-response-to-zero-budget-farming-in-palekars-native-village/articleshow/70164475.cms

Baranski

(2022). The globalization of wheat: A critical history of the Green Revolution. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Bhaduri

, & Talat

(2020). RRI beyond its comfort zone: Initiating a dialogue with frugal innovation by ‘the vulnerable’. Science, Technology and Society, 25(2), 273–290.

Bharucha

Z. P.

, Mitjans

S. B.

, & Pretty

(2020). Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 18(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1694465

Bijker

(2017). Constructing worlds: Reflections on science, technology and democracy (and a plea for bold modesty). Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 315–331.

10.

Blythe

, Silver

, Evans

, Armitage

, Bennett

N. J.

, Moore

M. L.

, Morrison

T. H.

& Brown

(2018). The dark side of transformation: Latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode, 50(5), 1206–1223.

11.

Borras

S. M.

(2023). La Via Campesina—Transforming agrarian and knowledge politics, and co-constructing a field: A laudatio. Journal of Peasant Studies, 50(2), 691–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2023.2176760

12.

Brand

(2016). ‘Transformation’ as a new critical orthodoxy: The strategic use of the term ‘Transformation’ does not prevent multiple crises. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 25(1), 23–27.

13.

Cabral

, & Sumberg

(2022). The use of epic narratives in promoting ‘natural agriculture’. Outlook on Agriculture, 51(1), 129–136.

14.

Cabral

, Pandey

, & Xu

(2022). Epic narratives of the green revolution in Brazil, China, and India. Agriculture and Human Values, 39(1), 249–267.

15.

Chambers

(1988). Managing canal irrigation: Practical analysis from South Asia. Cambridge University Press.

16.

Chambers

(1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development, 22(10), 1437–1454.

17.

Chambers

(2019). Personal reflections on the Green Revolution narratives and myths. IDS. https://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/personal-reflections-on-the-green-revolutions-narrative-and-myths/

18.

Chertkovskaya

, Paulsson

, & Barca

(Eds.). (2019). Towards a political economy of degrowth. Rowman & Littlefield.

19.

Colombo

L. A.

, Bailey

A. R.

, & Gomes

M. V.

(2023). Scaling in a post-growth era: Learning from Social Agricultural Cooperatives. Organization, 31(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084221147480

20.

Cullather

(2013). The hungry world: America’s Cold War battle against poverty in Asia. Harvard University Press.

21.

Dabholkar

S. A.

(2011). Plenty for all: Pryog parivaar methodology. Mehta Publications.

22.

D’Alisa

, Demaria

, & Kallis

(Eds.). (2014). Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era. Routledge.

23.

Das

, Khurana

, & Gulati

(2024). Zero budget natural farming: Implications for sustainability, profitability, and food security (NABARD Research Study Number 43). NABARD and ICRIER.

24.

Ditzler

, & Driessen

(2022). Automating agroecology: How to design a farming robot without a monocultural mindset? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 35(1), 2.

25.

Escobar

(2015). Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: A preliminary conversation. Sustainability Science, 10, 451–462.

26.

FAO. (2018). The 10 elements of agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3d7778b3-8fba-4a32-8d13-f21dd5ef31cf/content

27.

FAO. (2021). Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in India. https://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1417806/

28.

Feola

(2015). Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44(5), 376–390.

29.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.-a). FAO’s work on agroecology. https://www.fao.org/agroecology/overview/our-work/en/

30.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.-b). Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in India. https://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1417806/

31.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.-c). Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) in India. https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/429762/

32.

Geels

F. W.

(2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510.

33.

Gerber

J. F.

(2020). Degrowth and critical agrarian studies. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(2), 235–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1695601

34.

Gill

, & Singh

(2006). Farmers’ suicides and response of public policy: Evidence, diagnosis and alternatives from Punjab. Economic & Political Weekly, 41(26), 2762–2768.

35.

Giraldo

O. F.

, & McCune

(2019). Can the state take agroecology to scale? Public policy experiences in agroecological territorialization from Latin America. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43(7–8), 785–809.

36.

Giraldo

O. F.

, & Rosset

P. M.

(2018). Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between institutionality and social movements. Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(3), 545–564.

37.

Giraldo

O. F.

, & Rosset

P. M.

(2023). Emancipatory agroecologies: Social and political principles. Journal of Peasant Studies, 50(3), 820–850.

38.

GoI (Government of India). (2021, December 17). Zero Budget Natural Farming. https://pib.gov.in/FactsheetDetails.aspx?Id=148598

39.

Grey

, & Patel

(2015). Food sovereignty as decolonization: Some contributions from Indigenous movements to food system and development politics. Agriculture and Human Values, 32, 431–444.

40.

Harwood

(2012). Europe’s Green Revolution and its successors: The rise and fall of peasant-friendly plant breeding. Routledge.

41.

Harwood

(2019). Was the Green Revolution intended to maximise food production? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 17(4), 312–325.

42.

Heuts

, & Mol

(2013). What is a good tomato? A case of valuing in practice. Valuation Studies, 1(2), 125–146.

43.

HLPE. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/ff385e60-0693-40fe-9a6b-79bbef05202c/content

44.

Holt-Giménez

, & Altieri

M. A.

(2013). Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food systems, 37(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.716388

45.

Khadse

, Rosset

P. M.

, Morales

, & Ferguson

B. G.

(2018). Taking agroecology to scale: The zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(1), 192–219.

46.

Kumar

, Kumar

, Yashavanth

B. S.

, Meena

P. C.

, Indoria

A. K.

, Kundu

, & Manjunath

(2020). Adoption of natural farming and its effect on crop yield and farmers’ livelihood in India. ICAR—National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Hyderabad, India, 130.

47.

Kuruganti

(2019, August). Statement from ASHA on Subhas Palekar Natural Farming. ASHA 06. https://kisanswaraj.in/2019/08/06/statement-from-asha-on-subhash-palekar-natural-farming/

48.

La Via Campesina. (2015, December 4). Peasant agroecology cools the planet! Zero Budget Natural Farming and the road to resistance at COP 21. https://viacampesina.org/en/peasant-agroecology-cools-the-planet-zero-budget-natural-farming-and-the-road-to-resistance-at-cop-21/

49.

La Via Campesina. (2023, November 7). Peasant Agroecology Schools: Amritabhoomi Learning Centre and farmer-to-farmer learning exchanges. https://viacampesina.org/en/peasant-agroecology-schools-amritabhoomi-learning-centre-and-farmer-to-farmer-learning-exchanges/

50.

Law

, & Mol

(2008). The actor-enacted: Cumbrian sheep in 2001. Material Agency: Towards a Non-anthropocentric Approach, 57–77. http://heterogeneities.net/publications/LawMol2008ActorEnacted.pdf

51.

Levidow

, Pimbert

, & Vanloqueren

(2014). Agroecological research: Conforming—Or transforming the dominant agro-food regime? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38(10), 1127–1155.

52.

Mansata

(2010). The vision of natural farming. Earthcare books.

53.

Martínez-Torres

M. E.

, & Rosset

P. M.

(2014). Diálogo de saberes in La Vía Campesina: Food sovereignty and agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 979–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.872632

54.

McGreevy

S. R.

, Rupprecht

C. D.

, Niles

, Wiek

, Carolan

, Kallis

, Kantamaturapoj

, Mangnus

, Jehlička

, Taherzadeh

, Sahakian

, Chabay

, Colby

, Vivero-Pol

J. L.

, Chaudhuri

, Spiegelberg

, Kobayashi

, Balázs

, Tsuchiya

… Tachikawa

(2022). Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nature Sustainability, 5(12), 1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5

55.

Meek

, & Khadse

(2022). Food sovereignty and farmer suicides: Bridging political ecologies of health and education. Journal of Peasant Studies, 49(2), 381–401.

56.

Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho

, Giraldo

O. F.

, Aldasoro

, Morales

, Ferguson

B. G.

, Rosset

, Khadse

& Campos

(2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42(6), 637–665.

57.

Mol

(2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Duke University Press.

58.

Multiversity Gurukul. (2017, February 10). Sustainable agriculture 1 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-d1QDRDm8w

59.

Münster

(2016). Agro-ecological double movements?: Zero Budget Natural Farming and alternative agricultures after the neoliberal crisis in Kerala. In Mohanty

B. B.

(Ed.), Critical perspectives on agrarian transition (pp. 222–244). Routledge.

60.

Münster

(2018). Performing alternative agriculture: Critique and recuperation in zero budget natural farming, South India. Journal of Political Ecology, 25(1), 748–764.

61.

NAAS. (2019). Zero Budget Natural Farming: A myth or reality (Policy Paper 90). National Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

62.

Natures Voice. (2018, January 4). Science behind the ZBNF—Subhash Palekar exclusive interview [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DALihIuF4FM

63.

NITI Aayog. (2021). Natural farming—Significant contributors. https://naturalfarming.niti.gov.in/significant-contributors/

64.

Nyéléni

(2015). Declaration of the international forum for agroecology. International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty. https://www.foodsovereignty.org/forum-agroecology-nyeleni-2015-2/

65.

Palekar

(2013). The principles of spiritual farming: Zero budget spiritual farming—Part 2. https://www.vedicbooks.net/principles-spiritual-farming-volume-p-14779.html

66.

Pandey

(2020). RRI’s commitment to care and vulnerability of agrarian systems: The ‘Problem’ of rice straw Burning in India. Science, Technology and Society, 25(2), 240–255.

67.

Pandey

, & Sharma

(2021). Knowledge politics, vulnerability and recognition-based justice: Public participation in renewable energy transitions in India. Energy Research & Social Science, 71, 101824.

68.

Pandey

, Valkenburg

, Mamidipudi

, & Bijker

W. E.

(2021). ‘All we want, is to get rid of the straw’: How biofuel policies need to be multiple. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, 15(1), 4–23.

69.

Paoli

A. D.

, & D’Auria

(2021). Digital ethnography: A systematic literature review. Italian Sociological Review, 11(Suppl. 4), 243.

70.

Patel

(2013). The long Green Revolution. Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(1), 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.719224

71.

Patterson

, Schulz

, Vervoort

, Van Der Hel

, Widerberg

, Adler

, Hurlbert

, Anderton

, Sethi

, & Barau

(2017). Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 1–16.

72.

Patra

(2013, September 4). Subhas Palekar ZBNF day 1 of 4 [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JOSnwZAzo8

73.

Press Information Bureau (PIB). (2021, December 17). Zero Budget Natural Farming. Government of India. https://pib.gov.in/FactsheetDetails.aspx?Id=148598

74.

PIB. (2022, March 29). Adoption of Zero Budget Natural Farming. Government of India. https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1810917

75.

Puig de la Bellacasa

M. P.

(2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. University of Minnesota Press.

76.

Ramdas

S. R.

, & Pimbert

M. P.

(2024). A cog in the capitalist wheel: Co-opting agroecology in South India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 51(5), 1251–1273. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2024.2310739

77.

Rosset

P. M.

, & Altieri

M. A.

(2017). Agroecology: Science and politics. Practical Action Publishing.

78.

Saldanha

L. F.

(2018). A review of Andhra Pradesh’s climate resilient zero budget natural farming programme. Environment Support Group.

79.

Schiavoni

C. M.

(2017). The contested terrain of food sovereignty construction: Toward a historical, relational and interactive approach. Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(1), 1–32.

80.

Scoones

(2006). Science, agriculture and the politics of policy: The case of biotechnology in India. Orient BlackSwan.

81.

Scoones

, & Stirling

(2020). The politics of uncertainty: Challenges of transformation. Earthscan.

82.

Scoones

, Stirling

, Abrol

, Atela

, Charli-Joseph

, Eakin

, Ely

, Olsson

, Pereira

, Priya

, van Zwanenberg

, & Yang

(2020). Transformations to sustainability: Combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 65–75.

83.

Shah

(2012). ‘A life wasted making dust’: Affective histories of dearth, death, debt and farmers’ suicides in India. Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(5), 1159–1179.

84.

Shah

, & Mansata

(2019, August 15). Budget and Zero Budget Farming: A response to Subhas Palekar. The Indian Express. https://ecologise.in/2019/08/15/budget-zero-budget-farming-a-response-to-subhash-palekar/

85.

Shiva

(1993). Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. Palgrave Macmillan.

86.

Sievers-Glotzbach

, & Tschersich

(2019). Overcoming the process-structure divide in conceptions of social-ecological transformation: Assessing the transformative character and impact of change processes. Ecological Economics, 164, 106361.

87.

Singh

(2022, March 9). There is much in a name, ask Subhas Palekar on Natural Farming. Rural Voice. https://eng.ruralvoice.in/national/there-is-much-in-a-name-ask-subhash-palekar-on-natural-farming.html

88.

Singh

, & Jardhari

(2001). Landrace renaissance in the mountains: Experiences of the Beej Bachao Andolan in the Garhwal Himalayan Region, India. An Exchange of Experiences from South and South East Asia, 87.

89.

Smith

, Fressoli

, & Thomas

(2014). Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 114–124.

90.

Smith

, Yeluripati

, Smith

, & Nayak

D. R.

(2020). Potential yield challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 247–252.

91.

Spaling

, & Van der Kouy

(2019). Farming God’s way: Agronomy and faith contested. Agriculture and Human Values, 36, 411–426.

92.

SPK. (2023, March 5). SPK farm visit 4 March 2023 Mr Hitesh Patel (part 2) Palekar five layer fruit forest model [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35sqxZR1Ah8

93.

Stone

G. D.

(2022). The agricultural dilemma: How not to feed the world. Routledge.

94.

Strangelove

(2010). Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people. University of Toronto Press.

95.

Sullivan

(2023). Ag-tech, agroecology, and the politics of alternative farming futures: The challenges of bringing together diverse agricultural epistemologies. Agriculture and Human Values, 40(3), 913–928.

96.

Times of India. (2019, July 21). Organic farming is worse than atom bomb … does not suit Indian conditions, only adds to greenhouse emissions. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/the-interviews-blog/organic-farming-is-worse-than-atom-bomb-does-not-suit-indian-conditions-only-adds-to-greenhouse-emissions/

97.

Tilzey

(2024). Food democracy as radical political agroecology: Securing autonomy (alterity) by subverting the state-capital nexus. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8(1044999), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1044999

98.

Tschersich

, Sievers-Glotzbach

, Gmeiner

, & Kliem

(2023). The transformative potential of Seed Commons: Applying the social-ecological transformation framework to agri-food systems. Journal of Rural Studies, 97, 290–302.

99.

Valkenburg

, Mamidipudi

, Pandey

, & Bijker

W. E.

(2020). Responsible innovation as empowering ways of knowing. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 6–25.

100.

Veluguri

, Bump

J. B.

, Venkateshmurthy

N. S.

, Mohan

, Pulugurtha

K. T.

, & Jaacks

L. M.

(2021). Political analysis of the adoption of the Zero-Budget natural farming program in Andhra Pradesh, India. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 45(6), 907–930.

101.

Wezel

, Bellon

, Doré

, Francis

, Vallod

, & David

(2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29, 503–515.