The chapter does not settle it for one crop, and it is right not to — it sets the choice up as a trade-off and shows what each side costs.
| Sugarcane and paddy (water-intensive) | Millets and pulses (drought-resistant) | |
|---|---|---|
| What is gained | High profits; supports industries such as sugar | Saves water, improves soil health, promotes sustainable agriculture |
| What is given up | The forgone gains from saved water and improved soil health | The higher profit and the industrial demand that sugarcane would have supported |
| Time horizon | Short-term economic gain | Long-term sustainability |
So the answer depends on the conditions the earlier page listed — soil, rainfall and market demand. Where groundwater is deep and rainfall low, growing a water-intensive crop uses up a resource that the whole area shares, and the opportunity cost is borne not only by that farmer but by every farmer around. Where water is plentiful and a mill is nearby, sugarcane can be the sensible choice.
A balanced conclusion: most farming regions are best served by a mix rather than by all of one crop — some area under the cash crop for income, some under pulses and millets to protect the soil and the water table. This is the same reasoning as the PPC: the useful choices usually lie between the two extreme points, not at them.