Mentor’s Comment

AMR is now a major threat to India’s health, food systems, and environment. Resistance has moved beyond hospitals into water, soil, and livestock. NAP-AMR 2.0 is timely and shows a stronger, more accountable approach. This analysis helps you clearly understand what worked, what failed, and what must change.It also builds GS2 and GS3 depth through governance, science, environment, and One Health linkages.

Introduction

India has released its National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (NAP-AMR 2.0) for 2025-29, signalling a renewed commitment to containing AMR, a challenge that affects human health, livestock, agriculture, the environment, and food systems. Unlike the first plan (2017), which saw uneven adoption across States, the second plan attempts structural reform through higher accountability, stronger surveillance, private-sector engagement, multi-departmental integration and One Health alignment.

Why in the news?

The launch of NAP-AMR 2.0 marks a significant turning point because AMR has now expanded beyond hospitals into soil, water, livestock, markets and food systems, making it a full-spectrum health and environmental challenge. 

How did the first NAP-AMR evolve and where did it fall short?

1. Significant early progress: Brought AMR into national consciousness, encouraged multi-sectoral participation, improved laboratory networks, and strengthened stewardship.
2. One Health recognition: Placed AMR within the interface of human health, animals and environment.
3. State-level stagnation: Most States undertook only individual activities; only a few (Kerala, MP, Delhi, AP, Gujarat, Sikkim, Punjab) created formal AMR action plans.
4. Weak institutional execution: Multisectoral One Health structures were missing in most States.
5. Uneven governance: Human health, veterinary systems, pharmaceuticals and waste management lie under different jurisdictions, causing weak coordination.
6. Monitoring deficiencies: Surveillance, regulatory oversight, environmental contamination monitoring and antibiotic stewardship remained fragmented.

What makes NAP-AMR 2.0 more mature and implementation-focused?

1. Shift to national priorities: Moves beyond intent; outlines clear responsibilities across levels of governance.
2. Private sector engagement: Recognises that a major share of India’s health care and veterinary services is provided privately.
3. Scientific strategy: Emphasises innovation, rapid diagnostics, alternatives to antibiotics, and improved environmental monitoring.
4. One Health deepening: Stronger coordination across food safety, waste management, agriculture, environment and human/animal health.

What new governance mechanisms does the NAP-AMR 2.0 introduce?

1. Higher accountability: Greater role for national supervision through a dedicated Coordination and Monitoring Committee.
2. State-level innovation: Recommends every State establish a One Health inter-ministerial AMR committee, along with State AMR cells.
3. Integrated reporting framework: Aligns State reporting with national structures for uniform monitoring.
4. Technical backbone: Calls for a national follow-up mechanism and a multi-departmental coordinating structure.

Where do administrative and operational gaps persist?

1. Funding limitations: NITI Aayog’s earlier financial grant-based system did not generate adequate incentives.
2. Weak incentive design: No system for rewarding State performance or penalising poor progress.
3. Fragmented responsibility: Human health, veterinary systems, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and waste sectors work under separate ministries and State departments.
4. Lack of real-time accountability: No statutory notification requiring States to inform the Centre of AMR progress.
5. Dependence on central push: States often wait for Union-level initiatives rather than proactively building AMR infrastructure.

What financial and institutional reforms does the article highlight as essential?

1. Mandatory funding channels: Conditional grants through the National Health Mission (NHM) for surveillance and laboratory systems.
2. Administrative energy: Once funding becomes compulsory, States respond faster.
3. Scientific backbone: Need for a sustainable, long-term national centre for AMR control and accountability.
4. International relevance: Without a Centre-backed national AMR programme, India cannot engage in meaningful global AMR governance.

Conclusion

The NAP-AMR 2.0 offers an opportunity to anchor India’s AMR response on a stronger scientific and institutional foundation. But success will require coordinated State participation, financial backing, and accountable governance, not just policy intention. A central AMR Centre, integrated surveillance, and enforceable incentives could finally convert national plans into ground-level action across health systems, veterinary services, agriculture, food safety and environmental management.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now