In Simbroh village of Punjab’s Patiala district, 70-year-old Gurjant Singh looked out over his five-acre farm with a mix of pride and resignation. When he began farming in 1978, he cultivated a variety of crops – bajra, vegetables, cotton and pulses. But since the late 1980s, he has been narrowing his focus.
Because of government price support for select crops, the higher market risks associated with diverse crops and an attempt to increase production, Singh has been mainly growing rice and wheat.
This kind of monocropping, often attributed to the Green Revolution – launched in the 1960s, which transformed India’s agricultural landscape by introducing high-yielding seed varieties, chemical fertilisers and advanced irrigation methods – is not specific to just Simbroh or Punjab. It has been adopted by farmers in most Indian states.
But experts warn that monocropping – cultivating a single crop on the same field year after year, often in a defined row pattern – leaves farmers exposed to market and climate fluctuations. In addition, studies have shown that monocropping depletes soil nutrients and increases vulnerability to pests and diseases.
Over the past six months, this reporter, as a part of the Environmental Data Journalism Academy fellowship, conducted a data-driven investigation into the impact of monoculture on farmers and soil. This three-part series presents our findings in detail. The first part of the series considers the factors that drive and sustain monocropping practices.
The monocropping pattern
India has embraced this monocropping system on a large scale, our analysis shows.
In nearly 80% of India's states, just five or fewer crops have dominated the majority of farmland over the last decade.
In most states, rice or wheat occupy the largest share of the cultivated area. Both are highly water-intensive.
In seven states, more than 90% of the cultivable land has just five or fewer crops being grown on it.
Punjab leads the pack, with 98% of its land being used for wheat, rice, cotton, maize and sugarcane.
This lack of diversity has undermined soil health and resulted in an increased use of fertilisers and pesticides, our data suggests.
Over the years, the authorities have pushed for crop diversification, specifically in Punjab and Haryana, states that were the focus of the Green Revolution.
In addition, the National Mission on Natural Farming has aimed to get farmers to increase the variety of crops they cultivate. But farmers have failed to do so – despite the benefits this practice could offer.
Several studies show that crop diversification helps maintain soil health and sustainability, reduce pest attacks and improve the quality and variety of food for humans and livestock. On top of this, it increases farmers’ income.
But monoculture persists because it is sustained by government policy, said Ramanjaneyulu GV, the executive director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture.
“Around 60%-70% of the government’s incentives are concentrated on a few crops like paddy, wheat, and cotton, creating a cycle where more technologies, resources and support systems are developed specifically for these crops,” he said.
As a consequence, “farmers gravitate toward cultivating them, as the incentives for inputs, knowledge, practices, and guaranteed market outputs are overwhelmingly fixed for these select crops”.
Among the main incentives is the Minimum Support Price at which the government buys crops from farmers. It is meant to act as a safety net for farmers, with the government directly buying a crop from them if the market price falls below the price it has set.
The Centre fixes a minimum support price for 23 agricultural commodities grown in the kharif and rabi seasons. However, in practice, it consistently buys only rice and wheat for its food security schemes, implicitly encouraging farmers to grow mainly these crops.
Ramanjaneyulu explained that this monoculture-centric approach poses significant risks to sustainable agriculture. “By prioritising rice and wheat, the system discourages diversification, leaving farmers vulnerable to market fluctuations, pests, and climate-induced challenges,” he said. “Moreover, it undermines soil health, depletes water resources, and reduces the resilience of farms.”
A failed attempt?
Though several official schemes have promoted diversification over the years by encouraging the cultivation of crops such as oilseeds and pulses, these attempts have largely been in vain.
Gurjant Singh’s stab at diversification in Punjab’s Simbroh in 2004 illustrates some of the challenges inherent in the push. Spurred by the local administration’s push for crop diversification, he had planted moong dal in his five-acre fields. His expenses per acre, including the cost of manure, fertilisers, and seeds, was approximately Rs 2,500.
But since no machines were available for harvesting green moong, the task required manual labour. The workers did not get a wage but agreed to a 70-30 share of the harvest. However, they later demanded a 50-50 split because of the labour-intensive nature of the work.
“This was not viable for me,” said Gurjant Singh.
Struggling to meet these demands, Gurjant Singh managed to have only two acres harvested before the labourers left for more lucrative wheat fields.
The remaining three acres stood unpicked for weeks, leaving Singh no choice but to destroy the crop. “It felt like losing something precious – like taking the life of an 18-year-old son I had nurtured,” he recalled.
Gurjant Singh’s attempt at diversification and subsequent failures are not an isolated instance.
Gurdeep Singh, 65, from Balbehra village of the same district, had a similar experience. For decades, he mainly cultivated paddy and wheat on his 5.5-acre plot. But between 2017 and 2022, he decided to plant potatoes on four acres.
He spent Rs 20,000 per acre on seeds and Rs 5,000 per acre on fertilisers. However, when he attempted to sell the produce, the market prices had dropped significantly, going as low as Rs 2 per kg.
“The average yield on my farm was around 300 quintals. However, I could sell only about 250 quintals, earning approximately Rs 60,000. This amount wasn’t enough to recover my investment. A significant portion of my produce went to waste as I waited for prices to improve, but they never did,” he said.
Gurdeep Singh was forced to take loans of Rs 3 lakh for two consecutive years in 2020 and 2021, accumulating to Rs 10 lakhs with interest.
To repay the debt, he had to sell a portion of his land for Rs 15 lakh.
“Imagine buying a packet of potato wafers for Rs 10 but selling 5 kg of potatoes for the same price,” Gurdeep Singh said. “How are we supposed to sustain ourselves with such rates?”
He added: “The financial burden and the unsustainable agricultural conditions have been devastating, forcing me to make tough decisions just to survive.”
The lack of incentives for other crops has forced farmers to return to crops with guaranteed Minimum Support Price – sustaining monocropping.
“There is an urgent need to shift the focus of incentives from merely procurement to a more holistic approach that includes input and output support,” said Ramanjaneyulu.
He emphasised the importance of supporting farmers not just with procurement guarantees but also access to better seeds, irrigation systems, as well as training in sustainable farming practices.
“Only through comprehensive support can we bring about a meaningful change in farmers’ practices and promote agricultural diversification,” he said.
Reporting for this story was supported by the Environmental Data Journalism Academy, a programme of Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and Thibi.
Methodology : The author conducted data analysis and interviews to produce this report. The data sets used for the study were data on the area, production, and yield of various crops, state-wise for 2013-2023, soil health data available for 2023-’24, and fertiliser and pesticide use data available from the fertiliser statistics 2021-22. The author analysed the area under cultivation for each state and identified states with low crop diversity as the ones cultivating five of less than five crops in more than 75% of their total area under cultivation. These states were then analysed for their soil health, fertiliser use, pesticide use, yields, and area under cultivation for water-intensive crops.
The analysis can be found here.
To validate the data and corroborate the findings, the author traveled to villages in Punjab and Haryana to meet the farmers and understand their ideas of crop diversification and their challenges.
The author also interviewed experts with backgrounds in agriculture and soil health to get their insights into explaining the interlinkage between crop diversity, water-intensive crops, and soil health.
