Reinventing agricultural extension?: preliminary assessment of Gujarat’s Krishi Mahotsav (Agrarian festival)

Full text

Since the summer of 2005, the Government of
Gujarat has been organizing every year a month
long Krishi Mahotsav (Agrarian Festival) in a
campaign mode. The campaign has modest
financial costs but entails a massive mobilization
effort involving over 1 lakh functionaries of
government departments, farmer co-operatives,
Panchayats, Agricultural Produce Marketing
Committees (APMCs), private input suppliers,
agricultural marketing companies and NGOs -
all in an effort to expose the farmer to modern
technologies, new crops and market
opportunities. While the conventional extension
machinery based on Training and Visit (T&V)
system has become defunct everywhere in India,
Gujarat’s Krishi Mahotsav promises an
innovative approach to reinventing agricultural
extension, to reconnecting the scientist with the
farmer, and in general, to extending the farmer’s
production possibility frontier. Has Krishi
Mahotsav served that purpose? Do farmers find
it worthwhile? Is it able to reach out to one and
all? IWMI-Tata Program, with the help of
partners, surveyed 1445 farmers around Gujarat
to analyse their perceptions about Krishi
Mahotsav. This Highlight summarizes the results
of the survey. Tushaar Shah, Itishree Pattnaik,
Sonal Bhatt, G. Kopa and Amita Shah
Water Policy Research
HIGHLIGHT
Reinventing Agricultural Extension?
9
2 0 1 2
Download this highlight from
www.iwmi.org/iwmi-tata/apm2012
Preliminary Assessment of Gujarat’s
Krishi Mahotsav (Agrarian Festival)

2
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
REINVENTING AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION?
3
Research highlight based on Bhatt (2011) and Pattnaik (2011)
INTRODUCTION
Since 2005, the Government of Gujarat has been
organizing, during May every year, a month long Krishi
Mahotsav in a campaign mode. Each such annual
campaign is preceded by months of elaborate planning.
Eighteen government departments, Agricultural
Universities, extension agencies, District Rural
Development Agencies, Panchayats, farmer co-operatives,
APMCs, seed, fertiliser and pesticide companies,
irrigation equipment manufacturers and political leaders
of various hues work overtime in mass contact programs
with the state’s 4.5 million farmers. Krishi Mela
(Exhibitions) are held in district towns where input supply
companies, banks, co-operatives, NGOs and government
departments display their ware. Krishi Shibirs (Farmer
Workshops) are held where scientists expose farmers to
new technologies and farmers share their experiences with
each other. Krishi Rath (Agrarian Chariot), a travelling
exhibition mounted on a decorated tractor trolley
equipped with video projector, posters and extension
materials, and manned by agricultural university scientists
and students visit each of Gujarat’s 18000 villages on a
pre-announced schedule. They provide information and
guidance to farmers on topics such as soil health
management, crop rotation, organic farming, use of
fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation practices, crop and
milk marketing strategies, agro-processing and value
addition techniques as well as other new opportunities to
improve their farming and incomes. Poor farmers in each
village are also provided input kits on agriculture,
horticulture and animal husbandry, containing seeds,
fertilizers, pesticides, and such like. Documentary films
and VCDs on extension education prepared by the state
agricultural universities are distributed to the farmers or
1,2
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF GUJARAT’S KRISHI MAHOTSAV (AGRARIAN FESTIVAL)
the gram panchayats. Expert lectures and one-to-one
counseling sessions are held. Soil health tests are
undertaken and soil health cards are given to the farmers,
detailing the soil composition of their respective farms
and suggesting the best possible crops for that soil type.
Intensive animal vaccination programmes and animal
health camps are also held. Besides providing information
and exposure, the month-long campaign also does a great
deal to foster peer-group communication and discussion,
and recognize farmer-innovators and publicise their
achievements. All in all, the Krishi Mahotsav is a massive
exercise, which mobilizes various stakeholders in the
agricultural development of the state in a concentrated and
time-bound manner. Every year, a different aspect is
chosen as the key focus of Krishi Mahotsav as shown
below.
2005 - Agriculture
2006 - Horticulture
2007 - Animal husbandry
2008 - Subsidy schemes of state and central
governments
2009 - Exhibition of technologies and marketing
opportunities
2010 - Convergence of all agriculture related
technology at village level
All in all, while financial costs of the Krishi Mahotsav
campaign are modest, the scale of the effort mounted -
what with over one lakh functionaries involved - is
formidable. While conventional agricultural extension
machinery has become defunct everywhere in India,
Gujarat’s Krishi Mahotsav was designed to fill the gap,
and enhance farmers’ awareness about new technologies
as well as government schemes. Has Krishi Mahotsav
1This IWMI-Tata Highlight is based on research carried out under the IWMI-Tata Program (ITP) with additional support from the
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo. It is not externally peer-reviewed and the views expressed are of the
author/s alone and not of ITP or its funding partners – IWMI, Colombo and Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), Mumbai.
2The authors are respectively researchers with IWMI-Tata Program at Anand, Gujarat Institute of Development Research a Ahmedabad,
and Sardar Patel University at Vallabh Vidyanagar. The authors acknowledge research assistance provide by P Reghu of the IWMI-Tata
Program.
3These reports are available on request from p.reghu@cgiar.org

3
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
served that purpose? IWMI-Tata Program, with the help
of partners, surveyed 1445 farmers around Gujarat to
assess the contribution of Krishi Mahotsav.
OBJECTIVES, METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN OF THE
STUDY
This study was undertaken as a preliminary assessment of
the Krishi Mahotsav, to examine the extent of farmer
awareness and participation in Krishi Mahotsav, and the
adoption of new practices by beneficiary farmers. It also
sought to gauge the success of the disbursement of soil
health cards, the kisan credit cards, extension materials
and input kits for the poor. One village was selected from
each of the 25 districts of Gujarat. A sample of 60
respondent farmers from each village was selected
through the stratified purposive sampling method with a
fixed number of households to be canvassed in each
category as shown in Table 1.
The primary survey was conducted in August 2010, a
month-and-a-half after the 2010 Krishi Mahotsav had
concluded. Information was collected from sample
farmers through a structured questionnaire. It included
questions about the economic status of the household
(landholding, livestock and other livelihood assets),
participation in the Krishi Mahotsav, awareness and
retention of information from the Krishi Mahotsav, actual
adoption of the learning, benefits derived from the various
government schemes, suggestions on improvement in
design of future Krishi Mahotsav. In order to supplement
and ratify the information obtained from the farmers, the
Expert Opinion Method was used to solicit whereby
opinions and suggestions of some 60 officials and
scientists including District Agricultural Officers, District
Nodal Scientists, officers from National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), Gujarat
Green Revolution Company (GGRC), APMCs as well as
the gram sevak and sarpanch of the study villages.
Secondary data was collected from government
departments, lead banks, state agricultural universities and
other sources.
KEY FINDINGS
Many partners had difficulty finding the required numbers
especially of women headed, Muslim and in some cases
Adivasi (ST) households in the same village and found
them in neighbouring villages. The key point is that the
sampling was neither random, nor proportional. It can be
best called structured stratified sampling method. The
purpose was to get sufficiently large sample for each
category to make credible analysis of their perceptions
about Krishi Mahotsav. Table 2 profiles the sample
households and their asset base. Only a quarter of the land
operated by the sample farmers was unirrigated; and only
around 9 percent of the sample farmers engaged in rainfed
farming on all their land. Wells and tube wells irrigated
half of the total land operated by sample households, thus
being the principal means of irrigation. Government
canals were a distant second.
Table 1 Sampling scheme for a survey of farmer perceptions about Krishi Mahotsav
Farmer category for the survey
Fixed sample size per
village
Total sample
size
1
Category 1 (10 + acre)
3
75
2
Category 2 (5-10 acres)
7
175
3
Category 3 (< 5 acres)
20
500
4
Farmers of any land holding class who do not use irrigation at all
on their fields
5
125
5
Landless farm labourers/tenant farmers
5
125
6
Schedule Caste (SC) households (any land holding size)
5
125
7
Schedule tribe (ST) households (any land holding size)
5
125
8
Muslim households (any land holding size)
5
125
9
Women headed households (any land holding size)
5
125
10
Total sample
60
1500

4
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
AWARENESS ABOUT AND PARTICIPATION IN KRISHI
MAHOTSAV
Around 69 percent of the sample farmers were aware of
Krishi Mahotsav and 65 percent thought it to be a ‘good
program’. Awareness and participation were particularly
high among large and Muslim farmers, and particularly
low among SC and landless households. A quarter of the
sample farmers attended the Krishi Mela and around one-
fifth attended a Krishi Shibir; over half were aware that
the Krishi Rath had visited their village and had visited
the same. A majority of these respondents were large land
owners and Muslim farmers. Our sample of Muslim
farmers was remarkable in that 86 percent of them were
‘aware’ of Krishi Mahotsav; and 81 percent of these said
‘they found Krishi Mahotsav’ beneficial. Predictably, the
landless were the least aware (49 percent) though all of
the ‘aware’ landless households also thought of it as a
‘good program’.
There was thus a strong scale-bias in exposure to Krishi
Mahotsav. Those with money to travel and time to spare
were more likely to attend Krishi Mela and Krishi Shibir.
Only 8 percent of the sample farmers visited the model
farmer’s field. Many of the small farmers and landless had
to forego this opportunity because they could neither
afford travel cost and the time for it, nor forego their
wages during that period. Moreover, they thought that
they had no use for new information when they had no
means to use it.
A gram sabha was to be organized by the gram sevak and
the sarpanch in the village prior to the visit of the Krishi
Rath. 41 percent respondents said they knew the gram
sabha was organised, and 32 percent admitted to having
attended such a gram sabha. Awareness and participation
in the gram sabha was found to be the highest among
large farmers and lowest among the landless and ST
farmers.
There was much dissatisfaction and heart-burning with
the manner of deciding beneficiary households as well as
the delivery of the kits to them. Many households found
the free agricultural inputs of no use as they were either
landless or they got them after the sowing season. Our
survey also showed evidence of considerable mis-
targeting, with medium and large farmers walking away
with agricultural kits.
Around a quarter of the sample farmers said that they
received literature on extension education and admitted
using it. Once again, the utilization of the literature was
better among large and Muslim farmers but low among
ST, tenant and women farmers. As high as 43 percent
respondents averred that they interacted with government
officials from agriculture and other departments. This is
Table 2 Profile of sample households and profile of their resource base
Categories
Number of
sample
households
Average
holding
size (acre)
Percentage
of land
unirrigated
Percentage of
land irrigated
by wells
Percentage
of land
irrigated
by canals
Percentage
of land
irrigated
by other
sources
Average
milking
bovines/
household
Average
total
bovines/
household
10 + acre
76
17.6
20.2
54.6
14.8
7.4
3.8
9.8
5-10 acre
178
6.8
21.4
59.0
9.8
5.9
3.1
8.3
< 5 acre
563
2.5
20.2
51.2
15.2
7.2
2.3
6.2
Un irrigated
farmers
114
2.8
100
0
-
-
2.4
6.9
Landless
131
0
0
0
2.6
6.8
Schedule
Caste (SC)
120
3.4
24.6
40.7
18.0
12.2
3.1
8.0
Schedule
Tribe (ST)
74
2.6
25.3
34.5
28.1
6.5
2.5
6.7
Muslim
72
6.0
9.5
67.7
18.0
2.4
4.6
6.9
Women
headed
households
117
3.0
33.9
39.4
12.9
8.0
2.4
6.7
Total
1445
4.3
25.6
49.9
13.7
6.6
2.7
7.3

5
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
remarkable because in normal circumstances, farmers
have few if any opportunity to get access to and interact
with officials and scientists in village settings. Private
seed, fertilizer and equipment companies were highly
motivated in using the opportunity provided by Krishi
Mahotsav; around 14 percent respondents reported to
have interacted with the staff of GGRC and 27 percent
with private input producers. Interaction with officials
from the lead bank/ NABARD (16 percent) and officials
of APMC (16 percent) was relatively low. Overall,
interaction with various extension agents was found to be
the highest among large farmers and quite low among
small, SC and ST farmers.
AWARENESS VERSUS ADOPTION OF IMPROVED
PRACTICES
A wide gap existed between awareness and adoption of
new crops as is evident in Figure 1. Awareness levels were
high among large and medium land owners and Muslim
farmers and low among rainfed farmers, ST and women
headed farm households. The gap between awareness and
adoption rates varied greatly across categories of
improved practices as well as of farmers. Indeed the bulk
of the adoption was concentrated in the former three
categories; and the average for the sample as a whole was
pulled down by the very low adoption rates of the SC, ST,
landless, rainfed and women headed households. The
large (10 + acres) and the Muslim farmers were at least 3
times more likely to adopt these practices compared to the
landless, rainfed, tribal and women headed households.
The highest gap between awareness and adoption exists
with respect to improved irrigation practices, soil health
management and water harvesting practices. In contrast,
the lowest gap was found in awareness and adoption of
new crops and seed varieties which promised immediate
private benefit. The innovation-diffusion literature argues
that adoption of new ideas is determined by five
characteristics of innovations: relative advantage these
offer, compatibility with individual’s life situation,
simplicity, trialibility and observability (Rogers 2003).
Arguably, adoption of new crops and seed varieties score
higher on all or some of these factors than irrigation and
water harvesting innovations. Notably, however, even in
soil health management and water harvesting, large
farmers were found to be miles ahead of the rest in
awareness as well as adoption of better practices. In
Figure 1 Survey of 1445 farmers: Awareness and adoption of improved practices
Percentage adopters Percentage of farmers aware
4.8
13.8
10.2
10.7
4.3
20.5
7.5
8.4
9.6
8
12
10.3
20.3
21.6
22
0.69
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.7
2.8
3
3.3
3.7
3.9
7.5
10.5
10.9
Floriculture
Water harvesting practice
Improved farming practice
Organic farming
Micro irrigation
Improved irrigation practice
Milk quality
Marketing facility
Soil health management
Improved pest management
Horticulture
Milk production
Government subsidy schemes in KM
New crops
New seed varieties

6
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
Figure 4 Participation rates of well owners and non-well owners in Krishi Mahotsav
63
59
18
14
52
26
15
83
78
43
31
75
47
30
Aware of KM
Farmers who consider it a good
program for Gujarat Farmers
Farmers who visited the Krishi Mela
Farmers who attended Krishi Shibir
Farmers who visited Krishi Rath
Farmers who participated in the Gram Sabha
Farmers who visited a model farmer’s field
Sample owners of wells and
tube wells in percentage [449]
Sample households without own
well/ tube well in percentage [996]
Figure 3 Targeting of government subsidies under Krishi Mahotsav
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10+ acre 5 - 10
acre
< 5 acre Rainfed
farmers
Landless SC ST Muslim Women
headed
HHs
Percentage in total sample households
Percentage in total sample households who availed of subsidies
Figure 2 Government subsidy programs: Awareness versus availing
47.54
30.77
31.98
20.25
16.92
29.63
22.64
30.65
23.29
29.46
24.59
11.54
8.38
7.59
3.08
12.35
16.98
16.13
10.96
10.82
10 + acre
5-10 acre
< 5 acre
Un irrigated farmers
Landless
SC
ST
Muslim
Women headed HHs
Total
Percentage of farmers who have availed
Percentage of farmers who are aware

7
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
improved marketing practices, both Muslim and large
farmers were the most enthusiastic adopters of new ideas.
There is also a similarly strong scale bias in awareness
and availing of government subsidies under Krishi
Mahotsav. Overall, some 30 percent of the sample farmers
were aware about government subsidy schemes; but only
11 percent availed of subsidies (Figure 2). Large farmers,
Muslim farmers and ST households in our sample had the
highest awareness and derived the maximum benefit from
government subsidy programs (Figure 2 and 3). The
proportion of sample households in these categories who
benefited from subsidy programs was larger than their
proportion in the sample. Landless families, small and
marginal farmers, rainfed farmers, SC and women headed
households benefited the least. Small and marginal
farmers, for example, were 35 percent of the total sample
but only 5 percent of the sample households who availed
of subsidies. Muslim and large farmer households in
contrast were less than 5 percent of the sample each; but
were respectively 14 and 19 percent of sample households
who benefited from government subsidy schemes (Figure 3).
OWNERSHIP OF WELLS AS KEY DETERMINANT OF
PARTICIPATION
Ownership of well/ tube well was another defining aspect
of participation in Krishi Mahotsav. Land less households
(131) and rainfed farm households (112) showed the least
participation in Krishi Mahotsav. This was quite
understandable. However, even those 289 farm
households who irrigated from canals and other local
sources participated in Krishi Mahotsav activities
significantly less than well owners (449 sample
households) and those households who did not have their
own wells (500 sample households) but were able to
purchase well irrigation service from well/ tube well
owners nearby. In general, ownership of a well/ tube well
had a strong impact on the participation of a household in
Krishi Mahotsav and benefiting from it. Figure 4 shows
that significantly larger proportion of well/ tube well
owners participated in various Krishi Mahotsav activities
compared to the rest of the sample households as a whole.
Interestingly, the difference between the two groups on
awareness about Krishi Mahotsav and ‘it’s being a good
program’ was much smaller than in the actual rates of
participation in various activities. Nearly twice the
proportion of well owners in our sample participated in
Krishi Mahotsav activities compared to non-well owners.
This suggests either or both of the following two things.
First, owners of wells/ tube wells take their farming more
seriously compared to farmers without ‘on-farm water
control’ that wells/ tube wells offer. Second, Krishi
Mahotsav has had little or nothing to offer to rainfed
farmers. Moreover, because the Irrigation Department -
responsible for managing major and medium irrigation
systems - is not included in Krishi Mahotsav, canal
Figure 5 Percentage of well owners and non-well owners who claimed useful learning from Krishi Mahotsav
15
9
6
4
19
9
9
7
13
9
11
7
20
11
17
6
12
6
15
14
8
18
17
16 31
33
31
32
Learnt about micro-irrigation
Learnt about organic farming
Learnt about floriculture
Learnt about horticulture
Learnt about improving milk quality
Learnt about increasing milk production
Learnt about better marketing of crops
Learnt about water harvesting
Learnt about improved soil health management
Learnt about improved pest management
Learnt about improved irrigation practices
Learnt about improved farming practices
Learnt about new seed varieties
Learnt about new crops
Sample owners of
wells and tube
wells [449]
Sample households
without own well/
tube well [996]

8
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
irrigators miss out on the opportunity to interact with a
key service provider.
Consequent to such patterns of participation, the well
owners learnt more from Krishi Mahotsav than the non-
well owners as evident in Figure 5. By far the majority of
sample farmers owning wells and tube wells reported
improved awareness about practices that offered direct
benefit to them without drastic changes in their existing
farming system - such as the use of new crops, new seed
varieties, improved farming and pest management
practices. In contrast, very small proportion of well
owners as well as non-well owners learnt about organic
farming, soil health management, water harvesting,
improving milk production and milk quality.
Much has been made about schemes such as the soil
health card and kisan credit card and how these are
helping to change the way farming is done in Gujarat. Our
sample survey showed that the penetration of soil health
card and kisan credit card is limited. Just around 10
percent of the 1445 farmers we sampled had these cards.
Most farmers who had these cards had not used it even
once. The lukewarm response of farmers to soil health
cards was evident in our qualitative discussions with
farmers. However, the penetration of agriculture,
horticulture and animal husbandry kits was surprisingly
high in our sample. Nearly a quarter of our sample
households received at least one of the three kits at least
once. This was higher than we expected since every
village is supposed to have only 15 recipients of the kits
of the three kinds.
A massive scale bias is evident in accessing these
schemes. Large and medium farmers have more than their
fair share of everything. Most large and medium farmers
have soil health cards and kisan credit cards. Most also
received the agriculture kit. The rainfed and the tribal
farmers were the worst off in all the five schemes
(Figure 6).
AWARENESS IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITIES
Gujarat’s four agricultural universities with campuses at
Anand, Navsari, Junagadh and Dantiwada are key players
in Krishi Mahotsav. Each of these has several districts as
its zone of influence as follows (Table 3).
Total
Women Headed HHs
Muslim
S.T.
S.C.
Landless
Unlrrigated Farmers
< 5 Acre
5 - 10 Acre
10 + Acre
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Percentage of sample households
Who ever received animal husbandry kit
Who ever received a horticulture kit
Who ever received an agriculture kit
Who had a soil health card
Who had the kisan credit card and
used it at least once
Who had a kisan credit card
Figure 6 Scale bias in access to government schemes
Table 3 Districts in the zone of influence of agricultural
universities
Anand
Panchamahal, Vadodara, Ahmedabad,
Anand, Kheda
Dantiwada
Gandhinagar, Mehsana, Patan,
Banaskantha, Sabarkantha
Navsari
Valsad, Narmada, Bharuch, Surat, Navsari,
Tapi, Dangs
Junagadh
Rajkot, Surendranagar, Amreli, Kachchh,
Bhavnagar, Junagadh, Porbandar,
Jamnagar

9
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
Figure 7 Awareness impact in the zones of influence of agricultural universities
Percentage of sample farmers claimed
having learnt during Krishi Mahotsav
Anand
Navsari
Junagadh
Dantiwada
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Improving milk qualithy
Increasing milk production
Crop marketing
Improved pest management
Improved irrigation practices
Improved farming practices
New seed varieties
New crops
Governments subsidies
Since our survey covered villages from each of these
districts, we are able to make an indirect assessment of
Krishi Mahotsav’s impact on awareness building in the
zone of influence of each agricultural university. The
differences in awareness levels cannot be wholly
attributed to the respective university; therefore causality
cannot be implied since many other factors come into
play. Yet, we had not expected such large differences in
the awareness impact of Krishi Mahotsav in the zones of
influence of the four universities. Navsari University’s
zone of influence includes tribal areas where awareness
levels are expected to be low. Moreover, the presence of
sugar co-operatives which provide total solutions to
sugarcane farmers’ problems also affects farmers’ need for
and receptivity to extension. In contrast, the Anand
University has in its zone of influence highly dynamic and
affluent farming areas. Figure 7 captures the awareness
levels of farmers along 9 key aspects of crop and dairy
farming in the four university zones.
The farmers we sampled under the Anand Agricultural
University gained the most from Krishi Mahotsav in terms
of information and awareness along most of the 9 key
aspects covered. Those under Navsari gained the least.
Farmers everywhere were most keen to learn about new
seed varieties and new crops; on these two, Dantiwada
farmers were nearly as good as those under the Anand
University. Farmers under Junagadh and Dantiwada, two
water stressed regions, should have been more aware
about improved irrigation practices; but it was in water-
abundant Navsari zone that farmers were more aware
about water management. Awareness about improving
milk production and quality - central to Gujarat’s
agricultural growth - was uniformly low except in the
Anand zone.
QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK FROM FARMERS AND
OFFICIALS
Most farmers interviewed perceived the Krishi Mahotsav
as a ‘good thing’, although they found it hard to specify
its verifiable benefits and impact. Many would like
guidance tailor-made to their specific context. Some
farmers and many officials would like to reduce the
periodicity of the Krishi Mahotsav to enhance its impact.
Many scientists and officials felt the Krishi Mahotsav
bridged the gulf between farmer and scientist, benefitting
both in various ways. However, some scientists and
officials felt that the succession of annual Krishi
Mahotsavs had led to over-exposure and fatigue among
officials and farmers, resulting in waning farmer interest

and dwindling participation. Some officials suggested
more frequent Krishi Shibirs in place of the present
format of Krishi Mahotsav. Others, who felt that May -
the hottest month of the year in which everyone is busy
attending weddings - is not the best time for Krishi
Mahotsav and suggested a redesigned Krishi Mahotsav in
two parts: summer and winter.
CONCLUSION
In sum, our survey of 1445 farmers around Gujarat tells
us that: [a] 69 percent of farmers we interviewed were
aware of Krishi Mahotsav and 65 percent considered
Krishi Mahotsav to be a ‘good’ initiative even though they
are not able to specify its verifiable benefits; [b] over 40
percent of the respondents said they came into direct
personal contact with government officials or scientists or
input suppliers; [c] Krishi Mahotsav has done better in
generating awareness about improved practices than in
promoting their adoption; [d] large land owners and
Muslim farmers have participated and benefited the most
from Krishi Mahotsav while rainfed, landless, ST and SC
farmers, and women headed farming households have
neither participated nor benefited from the initiative; [e]
owners of wells and tube wells are far more proactive in
participating in Krishi Mahotsav compared to farmers
who depend on canal irrigation and other sources of
irrigation, as well as rainfed farmers. Krishi Mahotsav
also has much more to offer to farmers with on-farm
water control than to rainfed farmers; [f] soil health cards
and kisan credit cards have little penetration; and we
found strong scale-bias in access to free input kits.
While awareness impact is high, adoption impact is low.
Low adoption rates should not be surprising. Extension
scholars like Everett Rogers (2003) have established
through decades of research that new ideas are first taken
up by ‘innovators’ and a small minority of ‘early
adopters’. It is then mostly through peer communication
and opinion leaders that established new practices attract
an ‘early majority’ to adopt. There is still a ‘late majority’
who follow the suit much later when their dominant
‘propensity to resist’ every new idea is overcome by a
strengthening ‘propensity to adopt’, again through peer
communication and opinion leaders. And even after an
innovation becomes an established practice for long, there
still remains a small minority of ‘laggards’ who refuse to
change their old ways. In this light, the low rate of
adoption of new ideas and practices from Krishi Mahotsav
at 2-11 percent is not hard to explain.
The gold standard in good extension work is to identify
innovators and give them recognition and publicity. This
is one part that Krishi Mahotsav did well. It mobilized
agricultural administration and universities in tracking
down innovative farmers in every taluka, gave away
awards to them in well attended public meetings,
published their achievements in souvenirs and brochures,
and encouraged other farmers to visit their fields and
understand their innovations. It is unfortunate, though not
hard to understand, that very few of these innovative
farmers are from scheduled castes or tribes or from small
and marginal farmer or rainfed categories.
In an era when government agricultural extension has
become defunct, agriculture teaching and research have
got further removed from the farmer, and government
support to agriculture has reduced mostly to subsidies and
giveaways, Gujarat’s Krishi Mahotsav has treaded a new
path. Gujarat was never known for its agrarian dynamism.
Yet, since 2000, Gujarat has grown its agricultural
economy at an uncommonly high growth rate of over 9
percent/year. Many factors explain this remarkable growth
story (Shah et al 2011). If Krishi Mahotsav has played
even some minor role in it, the experiment must be
considered worthwhile for emulation by other states.
This is especially because Krishi Mahotsav costs so little
in real terms. Budgetary allocation for it has seldom
exceeded Rs. 100 crore per year. The resource it
intensively uses - the staff and students of Agricultural
Universities, government departments, APMCs, co-
operatives - could not possibly have better alternate use
than reaching out to farmers in large numbers. Indeed, one
might argue that never were agricultural scientists in
Gujarat closer to the farming community than they are
today, thanks to Krishi Mahotsav. Running around in
villages in scorching heat of May in Gujarat, setting aside
all routine work, is naturally not pleasurable. Yet, most
scientists and officials we interviewed conveyed the sense
of pride, fulfillment and self-actualization they
experienced by participating in Krishi Mahotsav.
Replacing the existing format by more frequent Krishi
Shibirs or undertaking Krishi Mahotsav in two equal parts
during summer and winter were among the suggestions
from scientists and officials.
Krishi Mahotsav also marks a shift from ‘propitiative’ to
‘proactive’ governance of the agricultural economy. By
giving away doles and subsidies, a propitiative strategy
keeps a restive peasantry quiet but deepens their fatalism
and dependency. A proactive strategy actively supports
innovation, change and progress. Given the current
predicament of India’s small-holder dominated
agricultural economy, there is need for both but there is
also need to strike a balance between the two. In many
states, the emphasis is wholly or mostly on propitiative
10
Water Policy Research Highlight-9

4In the Hindu epic Ramayana, when Lakshman was on death bed fatally injured in the epic war, Hanuman, the moneky God was tasked to
procure a life saving herb from the Himalayas. When he failed to identify the required herb, Hanuman returned with an entire the hillock
for the doctor to find what he needed.
REFERENCES
Bhatt, S. 2011. Impact of agricultural extension on farmers: A study of Krishi Mahotsav in Dehemi village of Central
Gujarat. Agricultural Situation in India, 67(12): 699-712.
Pattnaik, I. 2011. Evaluation of agricultural extension through Krishi Mahotsav: A preliminary assessment. Ahmadabad:
Gujarat Institute of Development Research, draft report.
th
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations (5 eds). New York: Free Press.
Salmen, L. F. 1999. The voice of the farmer in agricultural extension: A review of beneficiary assessments of agricultural
extension and an inquiry into their potential as a management tool. AKIS Discussion Paper, No. 22305, Washington,
D.C.: World Bank.
Shah, T., Gulati, A., Pullabhotla, H., Shreedhar, G. and Jain, R.C. 2009. The secret of Gujarat’s agrarian miracle. Economic
& Political Weekly, 44(52): 45-55.
11
Water Policy Research Highlight-9
approaches driven by vote-bank politics. Gujarat’s
agricultural strategy has tilted increasingly towards
proactive governance. Krishi Mahotsav is a good example
of this shift.
The challenge for Krishi Mahotsav then is of deepening
the osmotic processes through which diffusion of
innovative ideas and farming practices becomes faster to
reach the benefits of progress to the poor. One strident
criticism of the Krishi Mahotsav
from farmers was that its
extension messages were too
generic and not location/ farmer
specific. This may require a
change in Krishi Mahotsav’s
4
‘Hanuman strategy' of inundating
the farming community with
progressive ideas and
technologies and leaving it to each
farmer to find what is useful to
him. A more differentiated
approach based on the needs, risk
and resource profile of different
sub-groups of the farming
community may arguably produce
superior outcomes. Krishi
Mahotsav is also too focused on
the well owner segment of
Gujarat’s farming communities; it
offers little to dry land farmers
and farmers dependent on canal
irrigation. Including the Irrigation
Department in Krishi Mahotsav would improve the
interface between irrigation agencies and farmers. The
campaign should also focus some attention on the
opportunities for improving rainfed farming. There is
need for resolute effort to contain and reduce the scale-
bias in allocation of benefits through a special thrust to
reach out to the landless tenants, women headed farm
households and rainfed farmers.

About the IWMI-Tata Program and Water Policy Highlights
The IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program (ITP) was launched in 2000 as a co-equal
partnership between the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo and
Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT), Mumbai. The program presents new perspectives and
practical solutions derived from the wealth of research done in India on water resource
management. Its objective is to help policy makers at the central, state and local levels
address their water challenges – in areas such as sustainable groundwater management,
water scarcity, and rural poverty – by translating research findings into practical policy
recommendations. Through this program, IWMI collaborates with a range of partners
across India to identify, analyze and document relevant water-management approaches
and current practices. These practices are assessed and synthesized for maximum policy
impact in the series on Water Policy Highlights and IWMI-Tata Comments.
Water Policy Highlights are pre-publication discussion papers developed primarily as the
basis for discussion during ITP's Annual Partners' Meet. The research underlying these
Highlights was funded with support from IWMI, Colombo and SRTT, Mumbai.
However, the Highlights are not externally peer-reviewed and the views expressed are of
the author/s alone and not of ITP or either of its funding partners.
IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program
Near Smruti Apartment, Behind IRMA
Mangalpura, Anand 388001, Gujarat, India
Tel/Fax: +91 2692 263816/817
Email: iwmi-tata@cgiar.org
c/o INREM Foundation
IWMI Headquarters and Regional Office for Asia
iwmi@cgiar.org
IWMI Offices
SOUTH ASIA
p.amerasinghe@cgiar.org
iwmi-delhi@cgiar.org
iwmi-pak@cgiar.org
127 Sunil Mawatha, Pelawatte
Battaramulla, Sri Lanka
Tel: +94 11 2880000, 2784080
Fax: +94 11 2786854
Email:
Website:
Hyderabad Office, India
C/o International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-
Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
401/5, Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India
Tel: +91 40 30713735/36/39
Fax: +91 40 30713074/30713075
Email:
New Delhi Office, India
2nd Floor, CG Block C, NASC Complex
DPS Marg, Pusa, New Delhi 110 012, India
Tel: +91 11 25840811/2, 65976151
Fax: +91 11 25842075
Email:
Lahore Office, Pakistan
12KM Multan Road, Chowk Thokar Niaz Baig
Lahore 53700, Pakistan
Tel: +92 42 35299504-6
Fax: +92 42 35299508
Email:
www.iwmi.org
SOUTHEAST ASIA
m.mccartney@cgiar.org
CENTRAL ASIA
m.junna@cgiar.org
AFRICA
iwmi-ghana@cgiar.org
Southeast Asia Office
C/o National Agriculture and Forestry Research
Institute (NAFRI)
Ban Nongviengkham,
Xaythany District,
Vientiane, Lao PDR
Tel: + 856 21 740928/771520/771438/740632-33
Fax: + 856 21 770076
Email:
Central Asia Office
C/o PFU CGIAR/ICARDA-CAC
Apartment No. 123, Building No. 6, Osiyo Street
Tashkent 100000, Uzbekistan
Tel: +998 71 237 04 45
Fax: +998 71 237 03 17
Email:
Regional Office for Africa and West Africa Office
C/o CSIR Campus, Martin Odei Block,
Airport Residential Area
(Opposite Chinese Embassy), Accra, Ghana
Tel: +233 302 784753/4
Fax: +233 302 784752
Email:
East Africa & Nile Basin Office
C/o ILRI-Ethiopia Campus
Bole Sub City, Kebele 12/13
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Tel: +251 11 6457222/3 or 6172000
Fax: +251 11 6464645
Email:
Southern Africa Office
141 Cresswell Street, Weavind Park
Pretoria, South Africa
Tel: +27 12 845 9100
Fax: +27 86 512 4563
Email:
Kathmandu Office, Nepal
Jhamsikhel 3, Lalitpur, Nepal
Tel: +977-1-5542306/5535252
Fax: +977 1 5535743
Email:
Ouagadougou Office, Burkina Faso
S/c Université de Ouagadougou Foundation
2iE 01 BP 594 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
Tel: +226 50 492 800
Email:
iwmi-ethiopia@cgiar.org
iwmi-southern_africa@cgiar.org
IWMI SATELLITE OFFICES
l.bharati@cgiar.org
b.barry@cgiar.org
IWMI OFFICES