Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks to identify which option is not considered a positive outcome or advantage of the Green Revolution, implying it might have negative consequences. The passage provides clues to this.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
\[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{(A) Use of HYV seeds: This was the cornerstone of the Green Revolution and led to a sharp increase in food production, which was a major advantage.} \\ \bullet & \text{(B) Introduction of easy credit schemes: The passage mentions "access to credit facilities" as part of the strategy. This helped farmers afford the new inputs, which was an intended advantage.} \\ \bullet & \text{(C) Use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides: While the use of these inputs was central to the Green Revolution and boosted yields in the short term, the passage explicitly states a major disadvantage: "the excess usage of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have harmed the long-term fertility of soil." Therefore, in the long run, this is not considered an unmitigated advantage.} \\ \bullet & \text{(D) Improvement of irrigation facilities: The passage mentions "assured water supplies" as a key input. Expanding irrigation was a crucial advantage that made the HYV seeds viable.} \\ \end{array}\]
While the use of chemicals was part of the package that increased yields, its negative long-term environmental impact makes it the answer that is "not an advantage" in a holistic sense.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is not considered a pure advantage due to its negative impact on long-term soil fertility.