Overview
Previous Year UPSC-CSE Questions By the end you will be able to draft model answers for the following UPSC questions. Each question carries a collapsible framework showing how to approach it in the exam.
- UPSC Prelims 2020In the context of India, which of the following is/are considered to be practice(s) of eco-friendly agriculture?
- Crop diversification
- Legume intensification
- Tensiometer use
- Vertical farming
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Apply the eco-friendly classification: crop diversification breaks monoculture; legume intensification fixes atmospheric nitrogen and reduces urea dependence; tensiometer use measures soil moisture for irrigation efficiency. Vertical farming is a controlled-environment technique commonly associated with urban agriculture and resource-intensive lighting; it is NOT classified in the field-level eco-friendly practice list in the UPSC framing.
Trap to watch: Treating vertical farming as eco-friendly because it conserves land; the UPSC framing focuses on field-level resource-efficiency practices, not vertical-stack innovations.
Key facts to recall:
- Crop diversification is one of the six core objectives of GR 2.0 (cross-link to monoculture-crisis driver).
- Legume intensification operationalises Integrated Nutrient Management; full elaboration in GR P7.
- Tensiometer-based irrigation reduces water-use intensity; cross-link to micro-irrigation under PMKSY covered in Agri P8.
- Vertical farming is a separate controlled-environment-agriculture domain, not part of the eco-friendly field-practice canon in the UPSC framing.
Answer signal: Correct answer is (a) (1, 2 and 3 only); crop diversification, legume intensification, tensiometer use are eco-friendly; vertical farming is not in the classification.
- UPSC Prelims 2016With reference to 'Initiative for Nutritional Security through Intensive Millets Promotion', which of the following statements is/are correct?
- This initiative aims to demonstrate the improved production and post-harvest technologies, and to demonstrate value addition techniques, in an integrated manner, with cluster approach.
- Poor, small, marginal and tribal farmers have larger stake in this scheme.
- An important objective of the scheme is to encourage farmers of commercial crops to shift to millet cultivation by offering them free kits of critical inputs of nutrients and micro-irrigation equipment.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Apply the INSIMP design: integrated cluster approach covering production, post-harvest, and value-addition (statement 1). Small and marginal farmer focus given millets are traditionally grown by resource-poor cultivators in rainfed tracts (statement 2). Statement 3 describes a commercial-to-millet shift incentive that was not part of INSIMP architecture; the scheme expanded millet cultivation within existing millet-growing belts, not by attracting commercial-crop growers.
Trap to watch: Statement 3 sounds plausible because policy discourse around millet promotion includes incentive structures, but the specific commercial-to-millet free-kit incentive was not the INSIMP design.
Key facts to recall:
- INSIMP launched 2011-12 to promote millet cultivation in traditional millet-growing tracts.
- Operational focus: production technology, post-harvest, value-addition through cluster approach.
- Beneficiary focus: small, marginal, tribal farmers in rainfed regions.
- Subsumed under National Food Security Mission (NFSM) coarse cereals component.
Answer signal: Correct answer is (c) (1 and 2 only); INSIMP cluster approach and small-farmer focus correct; commercial-to-millet shift scheme wrong.
- UPSC Prelims 2014In the context of food and nutritional security of India, enhancing the 'Seed Replacement Rates' of various crops helps in achieving the food production targets of the future. But what is/are the constraint/constraints in its wider/greater implementation?
- There is no National Seeds Policy in place.
- There is no participation of private-sector seed companies in the supply of quality seeds of vegetables and planting materials of horticultural crops.
- There is a demand-supply gap regarding quality seeds in case of low-value and high-volume crops.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
How to approach this Prelims question
Approach: Eliminate statement 1 because the National Seeds Policy was announced 2002 with the seed-sector-development framework. Eliminate statement 2 because the Indian seed industry has substantial private-sector participation in vegetable and horticulture seeds. Retain statement 3 because low-value high-volume seeds (wheat, paddy, coarse cereals, pulses) face a demand-supply gap; private sector finds vegetable and high-value-low-volume seeds more commercially attractive.
Trap to watch: Statement 2 inverts the actual structure; the trap catches readers who associate seed-sector with public-sector dominance from the GR 1.0 era.
Key facts to recall:
- National Seeds Policy 2002 frames the seed-sector-development architecture.
- Seed Replacement Rate enhancement is the productivity-sustainability bridge.
- Private-sector dominates vegetable and horticulture seed market; public-sector and cooperative sector cover low-value high-volume cereal and pulse seed.
- Cross-link: ICAR seed-multiplication network plus state-seed-corporations are the public-sector institutional vehicle.
Answer signal: Correct answer is (b) (3 only); demand-supply gap for low-value high-volume seeds is the binding constraint.
Green Revolution 2.0 is the second-generation agricultural transformation framework that retains the productivity ambition of the original Green Revolution while adding the constraints the original violated. The framework rests on three reframings of the GR 1.0 logic. The productivity-to-sustainability reframing shifts the optimisation target from output-per-hectare-per-crop to output-per-hectare-per-year-with-ecological-stewardship. The input-intensive-to-resource-efficient reframing shifts the input paradigm from HYV-plus-fertiliser-plus-irrigation maximalism to precision-applied, soil-test-based, water-efficient, climate-resilient inputs. The regional-concentration-to-rainfed-and-Eastern-focus reframing shifts the spatial target from the Indo-Gangetic wheat belt (covered in GR P4) to the historically-lagging eastern India and dryland Peninsular tracts. The conceptual lead is the Evergreen Revolution by M S Swaminathan, defined as productivity improvement in perpetuity without ecological harm (introduced in GR P5; elaborated in P6 through P10). The institutional vehicle is the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) launched 2014-15 under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (elaborated in P10).
Background and Historical Context
The GR 1.0 productivity gain made India food-grain self-sufficient by the early 1980s but did not make Indian agriculture ecologically sustainable, socially inclusive, or nutritionally secure. The four cost-drivers documented in GR P5 (groundwater depletion, soil degradation, chemical pollution, agro-biodiversity loss) compounded across decades. The 2.0 framework is the policy and conceptual response. UPSC Prelims has tested the sustainability pivot at the practice level (UPSC Prelims 2020 on eco-friendly agriculture practices including crop diversification, legume intensification, and tensiometer use), the food-to-nutritional-security transition at the millets-promotion level (UPSC Prelims 2016 on the Initiative for Nutritional Security through Intensive Millets Promotion), and the seed-system productivity-sustainability bridge (UPSC Prelims 2014 on Seed Replacement Rate constraints).
What is the significance of the GR 2.0 conceptual pivot? Three operational dimensions follow. The cost-internalisation dimension means the GR 1.0 externalities (groundwater overdraft priced at zero, soil-carbon loss unpriced, biodiversity decline uncompensated) are now treated as endogenous to farm-level production decisions; the GR 2.0 architecture is designed to internalise these costs through soil health cards, water-efficiency pricing, and biodiversity-credit instruments. The climate-resilience dimension means production planning has to account for monsoon variability, heat stress, and groundwater depletion as binding constraints rather than as nuisances; climate-resilient varieties (Swarna-Sub1 flood-tolerant rice covered in P8) and the NICRA programme by ICAR are the technological responses. The inclusion-and-nutrition dimension means the next-generation agricultural transformation has to reach the small and marginal farmer (cross-link to FPO architecture covered in P10) and shift production toward nutritionally-dense crops (millets, pulses, biofortified varieties covered in P9) rather than the wheat-rice monoculture that solved the calorie-security problem at the cost of the protein-and-micronutrient gap.
Current threads include the International Year of Millets 2023 declared by the United Nations on India's proposal as the visible flag of the food-to-nutritional-security transition, the NMSA as the umbrella sustainability scheme covering rainfed area development plus on-farm water management plus soil health management (elaborated in P10), the Soil Health Card scheme covering site-specific nutrient management (covered in Agri P9), the doubling-farmer-income framing in the Niti Aayog and Dalwai Committee reports that operationalises the inclusion dimension at the policy level, and the natural farming push under Bharatiya Prakritik Krishi Paddhati (BPKP) as the agroecological flank of GR 2.0 (elaborated in P7). The cluster-architecture lesson is that GR 2.0 is not a single technological shift like GR 1.0 was; it is a multi-axis architecture spanning sustainable agriculture (P7), climate-smart agriculture (P8), precision and digital and biofortified crops (P9), and policy plus FPO institutional vehicle (P10).
GR 2.0 Pivot: Definition and Three Reframings
What GR 2.0 keeps and what it changes
Green Revolution 2.0 is the second-generation agricultural transformation that retains the GR 1.0 productivity ambition while inverting the GR 1.0 input-intensification logic. The framework rests on three operational reframings. The productivity-to-sustainability reframing shifts the optimisation target from output per hectare per crop to output per hectare per year with ecological stewardship.
The input-intensive-to-resource-efficient reframing shifts the input paradigm from high-yielding-variety, fertiliser, and irrigation maximalism to precision-applied, soil-test-based, water-efficient inputs (elaborated in P8 and P9). The spatial reframing shifts the focus from the Indo-Gangetic wheat belt (covered in GR P4) to historically lagging eastern India and dryland Peninsular tracts.
The conceptual lead is the Evergreen Revolution framed by M S Swaminathan as productivity improvement in perpetuity without ecological harm (introduced in GR P5). The institutional vehicle is the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) launched 2014-15 under the National Action Plan on Climate Change.
Together these establish that GR 2.0 is not a single technological shift; it is a multi-axis architecture spanning sustainable agriculture (P7), climate-smart agriculture (P8), precision, digital, and biofortified crops (P9), and the policy and FPO institutional vehicle (P10).
Four Drivers of the GR 2.0 Pivot
Groundwater, soil, declining productivity, monoculture
The 2.0 pivot is driven by four converging crises that GR 1.0 input-intensification cannot solve and in some cases actively worsens. These drivers operate at different temporal and spatial scales but share one structural feature: they require systemic redesign rather than input substitution.
The groundwater crisis driver is most acute in Punjab and Haryana, where wheat-rice rotation depleted aquifers across decades (covered in GR P5). The soil-degradation driver manifests through a skewed NPK ratio, soil-carbon loss, micronutrient depletion, and salinisation in canal-command tracts.
The declining-factor-productivity driver shows in the rising input-to-output ratio: each additional unit of fertiliser, water, and labour yields a smaller marginal output than it did in the 1970s. The monoculture-crisis driver shows in the squeeze on pulse and oilseed output by procurement-favoured wheat-rice, leaving India a net importer of pulses and edible oils.
- Driver 1: Groundwater crisis: Punjab and Haryana water-table fell substantially through GR phase; wheat-rice rotation is the most water-intensive cropping pattern in the Indian agro-climatic palette (cross-link to GR P5 critique).
- Driver 2: Soil degradation and nutrient imbalance: NPK ratio 6.6:2.7:1 against ideal 4:2:1; urea over-application drives nitrogen excess; phosphorus and potassium under-applied; micronutrients depleted across decades of continuous monoculture (cross-link Agri P9 and Soils P10).
- Driver 3: Declining factor productivity: Marginal output per additional unit of fertiliser, water, and labour has fallen since the 1990s; the cost of intensification rises while the yield response weakens; input subsidy bills rise faster than agricultural-GDP growth.
- Driver 4: Monoculture and crop-diversification crisis: Procurement-favoured wheat-rice squeezes pulses and oilseeds; India is a net importer of pulses and edible oils despite being the world’s largest pulse producer; the cropping-pattern bias is the protein-and-micronutrient gap origin.
GR 1.0 vs GR 2.0 Comparison
Nine-dimension architecture comparison
The architectural distinction between GR 1.0 and GR 2.0 sorts across nine dimensions covering optimisation target, input paradigm, spatial target, crop focus, institutional vehicle, water management, soil management, climate stance, and equity framing. The dimension-by-dimension comparison clarifies what is retained and what is redesigned.
| Dimension | GR 1.0 (1965-1990s) | GR 2.0 (2010s onwards) |
|---|---|---|
| Optimisation target | Output per crop | Output with ecological stewardship |
| Input paradigm | Maximalist: HYV, urea, irrigation | Resource-efficient and precise |
| Spatial target | Indo-Gangetic wheat belt | Rainfed tracts and Eastern India |
| Crop focus | Wheat and rice cereals | Millets, pulses, oilseeds, horticulture |
| Institutional vehicle | IADP, IAAP, FCI, KVK | NMSA, NICRA, KVK, FPO |
| Water management | Canal and tube-well extraction | Drip, sprinkler, PMKSY, PM-KUSUM |
| Soil management | Chemical fertiliser intensification | Soil Health Card, INM, natural farming |
| Climate stance | Assumed monsoon stability | Climate-resilient varieties, NICRA |
| Security framing | Food security as calorie sufficiency | Nutritional security in protein and micronutrient |
Six Core Objectives of GR 2.0
Sustainable productivity to nutritional security
The GR 2.0 architecture sets six core objectives that operationalise the productivity-to-sustainability pivot across the technical, environmental, equity, and nutritional axes. The objectives are not independent; each conditions the others through the integrated-package logic that the original GR established (covered in GR P3) and that GR 2.0 retains.
- Objective 1: Sustainable agricultural productivity: Yield improvement that does not deplete soil carbon, groundwater, or biodiversity capital; the Evergreen Revolution operational test.
- Objective 2: Climate-resilient farming systems: Production planning that accounts for monsoon variability, heat stress, and groundwater depletion as binding constraints; NICRA programme by ICAR is the technological vehicle (full elaboration in P8).
- Objective 3: Resource-efficient agriculture: Precision input application, soil-test-based fertilisation, drip and sprinkler irrigation, mechanisation appropriate to small-holder scale; the input-paradigm reframing.
- Objective 4: Inclusive agricultural growth: Small and marginal farmer integration via FPO architecture; women-in-agriculture mainstreaming; tenant and landless-labour livelihood improvements (FPO architecture in P10).
- Objective 5: Focus on rainfed and Eastern India: Spatial-target reframing; BGREI in Eastern India (cross-link GR P4); rainfed-area development under NMSA sub-mission; ICAR-CRIDA dryland research (cross-link Agri P11).
- Objective 6: Food to nutritional security transition: Shift from calorie-only food-security framing to protein-and-micronutrient nutritional-security framing; millet promotion via INSIMP and the International Year of Millets 2023 declared by the United Nations on India’s proposal; biofortified varieties (full elaboration in P9).
The six objectives map onto the next four parts of the series. GR P7 elaborates Objectives 1 and 3 through sustainable agriculture, natural farming, organic, and ZBNF. GR P8 elaborates Objective 2 through climate-smart and climate-resilient agriculture. GR P9 elaborates Objectives 3 and 6 through precision agriculture, digital agriculture, and biofortified crops. GR P10 elaborates Objectives 4 and 5 through the policy architecture and the FPO institutional vehicle.
Prelims MCQ practice
Each question below tests one specific concept on the topic. Click to reveal the answer and a full option-wise explanation.
Q1. Consider the following statements about the conceptual basis of Green Revolution 2.0:
- The Evergreen Revolution articulated by M S Swaminathan serves as the conceptual basis of GR 2.0 architecture.
- The Evergreen Revolution is defined as productivity improvement in perpetuity without associated ecological harm.
- The Rainbow Revolution and Golden Revolution are alternative names for the Evergreen Revolution proposed by Swaminathan.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer and explanation
Answer: 1 and 2 only
Explanation.
Correct: a (1 and 2 only). Statement 1 is correct: the Evergreen Revolution by Swaminathan is the conceptual basis of GR 2.0. Statement 2 is correct: the definition is productivity improvement in perpetuity without ecological harm. Statement 3 is wrong: Rainbow Revolution is the integrated multi-revolution umbrella term (green/white/yellow/blue); Golden Revolution refers specifically to horticulture; neither is an alternative name for Evergreen Revolution.
Q2. Consider the following statements about the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA):
- NMSA was launched 2014-15 as one of the missions of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC).
- NMSA sub-missions cover rainfed area development, on-farm water management, and soil health management.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer and explanation
Answer: Both 1 and 2
Explanation.
Correct: c (Both 1 and 2). Statement 1 is correct: NMSA was launched 2014-15 as one of the eight NAPCC missions, integrating sustainability into the agriculture-policy stack. Statement 2 is correct: NMSA sub-missions cover Rainfed Area Development (RAD), On-Farm Water Management (OFWM), and Soil Health Management (SHM).
Q3. Consider the following statements about the International Year of Millets:
- The United Nations General Assembly declared 2023 as the International Year of Millets on the proposal of the Government of India.
- India is the world's largest producer of millets, accounting for around 38 per cent of global production.
- The International Year of Millets specifically excludes pearl millet (bajra) and finger millet (ragi).
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer and explanation
Answer: 1 and 2 only
Explanation.
Correct: a (1 and 2 only). Statement 1 is correct: the UNGA declared 2023 as the International Year of Millets on India's proposal. Statement 2 is correct: India is the world's largest millet producer with around 38 per cent of global production. Statement 3 is wrong: the IY-Millets covers the full millet basket including jowar (sorghum), bajra (pearl millet), ragi (finger millet), and small millets; pearl millet and finger millet are INCLUDED, not excluded.
Q4. Consider the following statements regarding fertiliser use in Indian agriculture:
- The recommended NPK ratio for balanced fertilisation in Indian agriculture is 4:2:1.
- Excessive use of nitrogenous fertilisers has distorted the actual NPK balance in many regions of India.
- The Soil Health Card scheme launched 2015 was the policy correction targeting site-specific nutrient management.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer and explanation
Answer: 1, 2 and 3
Explanation.
Correct: d (1, 2 and 3). Statement 1 is correct: the recommended NPK ratio is 4:2:1. Statement 2 is correct: nitrogenous-fertiliser overuse (urea subsidy distortion) has skewed the actual ratio to approximately 6.6:2.7:1. Statement 3 is correct: the Soil Health Card scheme launched 2015 was the policy correction; it operationalises soil-test-based site-specific nutrient management.
Q5. Consider the following statements about climate-resilient agriculture research coordination in India:
- The National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) programme is coordinated by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) through ICAR-CRIDA at Hyderabad.
- ICAR-CRIDA stands for the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer and explanation
Answer: Both 1 and 2
Explanation.
Correct: c (Both 1 and 2). Statement 1 is correct: NICRA is coordinated by ICAR through ICAR-CRIDA at Hyderabad. Statement 2 is correct: ICAR-CRIDA = Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture; the institute coordinates dryland and climate-resilient research.
Q6. Consider the following statements about the Bharatiya Prakritik Krishi Paddhati (BPKP) scheme:
- BPKP is a sub-mission under Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) promoting natural farming using on-farm bio-resources.
- BPKP derives operationally from Subhash Palekar's Natural Farming approach (also branded as Zero Budget Natural Farming).
- BPKP is a chemical-fertiliser-intensive scheme focused on urea subsidy expansion.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer and explanation
Answer: 1 and 2 only
Explanation.
Correct: a (1 and 2 only). Statement 1 is correct: BPKP is a PKVY sub-mission promoting natural farming using on-farm bio-resources (jeevamrutha, beejamrutha, mulching, soil aeration). Statement 2 is correct: BPKP draws operationally from Subhash Palekar Natural Farming (popularly Zero Budget Natural Farming). Statement 3 is WRONG: BPKP is the OPPOSITE of chemical-intensive; it minimises or eliminates purchased chemical inputs in favour of on-farm bio-inputs.
Sources
- Class 12 India People and Economy, Chapter 5 (Land Resources and Agriculture)
- Evergreen Revolution: M S Swaminathan concept and lineage
- Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) institutional architecture and NICRA programme
- Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (DA and FW) policy and scheme architecture
- National Food Security Mission (NFSM) and coarse cereals component covering millets
- Press Information Bureau release on NMSA and International Year of Millets 2023
- M S Swaminathan Research Foundation institutional context
- Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance
- Niti Aayog: Doubling Farmers Income strategy documents
Disclaimer
Statistical references such as the NPK ratio are illustrative of structural patterns rather than exact current-year figures. Aspirants should cross-check scheme details against the Ministry of Agriculture and Niti Aayog. This is Part 6 of the ten-part Green Revolution series.
