GS Paper: Agriculture and related issues

Introduction

Mustard is India’s largest indigenous edible oil source, cultivated across nearly nine million hectares, primarily in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and West Bengal. The crop is increasingly threatened by Orobanche aegyptiaca, a root-parasitic weed that attaches to mustard roots and extracts nutrients, water, and carbon. The infestation has led to severe yield losses, stagnation in productivity, and renewed dependence on edible oil imports despite policy emphasis on self-reliance.

Why in the News

Orobanche has emerged as the number one “hidden threat” to mustard in major producing states, particularly Haryana and Rajasthan. The infestation has intensified uniformly across fields, even where no visible weed shoots appear initially. Yield losses have become severe, with farmers reporting declines from 9 quintals per acre to 6 quintals, despite normal weather and irrigation. This represents a sharp contrast to earlier years when mustard yields remained stable under similar conditions. The problem directly affects India’s strategy to curb edible oil imports, which stood at $15.9 billion in 2023-24 and $18.3 billion in 2024-25, making the issue macro-economically significant.

Why is mustard critical to India’s edible oil economy?

1. Dominant Indigenous Crop: Accounts for over 40 million tonnes of indigenous edible oil output in 2023-24 and 2024-25, the highest among domestic oilseeds.
2. Import Substitution Role: Identified as the primary crop for yield improvement to reduce 16 million tonnes of annual edible oil imports.
3. Farmer Dependence: Traditionally grown on three-fourths of irrigated land in parts of Haryana due to low input requirements.

What is Orobanche aegyptiaca and why is it dangerous?

1. Parasitic Nature: Attaches underground to mustard roots, extracting nutrients and water, causing wilting and stunted growth.
2. Hidden Infestation: Damage occurs before shoots appear above ground, delaying farmer response.
3. Seed Proliferation: A single plant produces 40-45 flowers, each bearing 4,000-5,000 seeds, viable for up to 20 years in soil.
4. Rapid Spread: Disperses through wind, water, and irrigation channels, creating dense seed banks.

Why has the infestation intensified in recent years?

1. Cropping Pattern Rigidity: Repeated cultivation of mustard on the same land enhances parasite density.
2. Irrigation Practices: First irrigation at 25-30 days after sowing creates ideal soil moisture for Orobanche germination.
3. Climate Suitability: Moist soils followed by underground establishment accelerate attachment to roots.
4. Delayed Visibility: By the time shoots emerge, yield damage is irreversible.

Why are existing herbicide options ineffective?

1. Non-Selective Action: Glyphosate inhibits EPSPS enzyme in both crops and weeds, preventing selective control.
2. Dosage Constraints: Recommended spray levels are too low for absorption by Orobanche.
3. Crop Damage Risk: Stronger herbicides like glufosinate, paraquat, imazapyr cannot be used on normal mustard.
4. Control Failure: Current chemical strategies fail to distinguish between host and parasite.

How can herbicide-resistant mustard hybrids change outcomes?

1. Technological Breakthrough: Introduction of imidazolinone-resistant mustard hybrid ‘Pioneer 45S42CL’.
2. Selective Weed Control: Enables use of imazapyr and imazapic to kill Orobanche without harming mustard.
3. Field Evidence: Two sprays covering two acres cost ₹3,150, significantly lower than yield losses.
4. Farmer Adoption: Hybrid sold in 700-gram packs with bundled herbicide, showing positive early results.

What are the long-term scientific and policy responses underway

1. Genetic Solutions: Development of GM mustard lines containing ‘cp4 epsps’ and double-mutant ‘als’ genes.
2. Resistance Spectrum: Enables tolerance to glyphosate, imidazolinones, and sulfonylureas.
3. Seed Bank Management: Emphasis on preventing early emergence to reduce soil seed viability.
4. Institutional Research: Ongoing work at the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants, Delhi University.

Conclusion

The Orobanche infestation has transformed mustard cultivation from a low-risk crop into a high-uncertainty enterprise. Addressing this challenge is essential not only for farmer incomes but also for India’s edible oil security strategy. Herbicide-resistant hybrids and genetic interventions represent critical pathways to restoring productivity and reducing import dependence.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2017] What are the major reasons for declining rice and wheat yield in the cropping system? How crop diversification is helpful to stabilise the yield of the crops in the system?

Linkage: The rice-wheat system question reflects UPSC’s focus on yield stagnation due to monocropping and biological stress. This pattern is equally visible in mustard through Orobanche infestation. Mustard, like rice-wheat, shows that repeated cropping without diversification increases pest and weed pressure, making crop diversification critical.

Introduction

Rice production has expanded sharply due to assured procurement, rising subsidies, and export demand. However, groundwater-dependent irrigation has become the dominant mode in northern India. Despite strong monsoons in recent years, extraction rates exceed natural recharge. Government classification of aquifers as “over-exploited” or “critical” signals a structural imbalance between agricultural policy and water resource sustainability.

Why in the News

India overtook China to become the world’s largest rice producer in 2023, exporting nearly double the quantity compared to the past decade and producing over 140 million tonnes of rice. While this achievement was politically and economically celebrated, it has intensified groundwater extraction in Punjab and Haryana. Borewell depths have increased from 30-40 feet to 80-200 feet, indicating rapid aquifer depletion. Rice cultivation in India consumes 3,000-4,000 litres of water per kg, 20-60% higher than the global average, turning agricultural success into a water sustainability concern of national scale.

How did India become the world’s largest rice producer?

1. Production Expansion: Annual rice output exceeded 140 million tonnes, surpassing China in 2023.
2. Export Growth: Rice exports nearly doubled in the past decade due to global demand and domestic surplus.
3. Policy Support: Minimum Support Price (MSP) assurance ensured farmer preference for rice cultivation.

Why is rice cultivation intensifying groundwater stress?

1. High Water Requirement: Producing one kilogram of rice requires 3,000-4,000 litres of water, exceeding global norms by 20-60%.
2. Groundwater Dependence: Punjab and Haryana rice farmers primarily rely on borewell irrigation.
3. Aquifer Depletion: Groundwater levels declined from 30-40 feet to 80-200 feet, indicating unsustainable extraction.

What role do subsidies play in water over-extraction?

1. Electricity Subsidies: Free or low-cost power encourages excessive pumping of groundwater.
2. Price Incentives: Rice prices increased by ~70% over the past decade, reinforcing crop preference.
3. Input Distortion: Subsidies discourage transition to less water-intensive crops.

Why are Punjab and Haryana particularly vulnerable?

1. Irrigation Pattern: Dominant reliance on groundwater over surface irrigation systems.
2. Weak Monsoon Resilience: Despite strong rainfall, extraction continues beyond recharge capacity.
3. Critical Classification: Aquifers in both states fall under “over-exploited” or “critical” categories.

How does groundwater stress threaten food security?

1. Farmer Costs: Deeper borewells require higher capital and energy inputs.
2. Production Risk: Aquifer depletion increases vulnerability to weak monsoons.
3. Systemic Stress: India produces more rice than domestic requirements, amplifying water stress without proportional food security gains.

What corrective signals are emerging?

1. Crop Diversification Incentives: Haryana introduced ₹17,500 per hectare subsidy for switching to less water-intensive crops.
2. Policy Limitation: Incentives are seasonal and lack long-term assurance.
3. Institutional Recognition: Government data acknowledges unsustainable groundwater extraction trends.

Way Forward

1. Crop Diversification
   1. Shift Incentivisation: Expands cultivation of less water-intensive crops such as pulses and oilseeds through multi-year income assurance.
   2. Procurement Reform: Aligns MSP and assured procurement with water-efficient cropping patterns.
2. Rationalisation of Subsidies
   1. Power Pricing: Reduces indiscriminate groundwater pumping by restructuring free electricity for agriculture.
   2. Input Targeting: Replaces universal subsidies with direct income support decoupled from water use.
3. Water-Efficient Irrigation
   1. Micro-Irrigation Expansion: Enhances adoption of drip and sprinkler systems to improve water productivity.
   2. Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD): Reduces water use in paddy cultivation without yield loss.
4. Groundwater Governance
   1. Aquifer Management: Strengthens block-level monitoring and annual recharge-extraction audits.
   2. Regulatory Enforcement: Restricts borewell depth expansion in over-exploited zones.
5. Export Rationalisation
   1. Water Footprint Accounting: Integrates virtual water costs into export policy decisions.
   2. Surplus Management: Aligns export volumes with regional water availability.

Conclusion

India’s rise as the world’s largest rice producer reflects policy certainty, farmer responsiveness, and export competitiveness. However, the same policy framework has accelerated groundwater depletion in key agrarian states. Without reorienting incentives toward water-efficient agriculture, food security gains risk becoming ecologically unsustainable. Long-term agricultural resilience requires aligning production, procurement, and irrigation policy with groundwater realities rather than output maximisation alone.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2020] What are the major factors responsible for making the rice-wheat system a success? In spite of this success, how has this system become a bane in India?

Linkage: This question directly links to MSP-led rice expansion, groundwater-intensive irrigation, and subsidy-driven cropping patterns, as highlighted in India’s rise as the world’s largest rice producer.

Introduction

India’s fertiliser subsidy, the second-largest subsidy after food, has expanded rapidly due to rising global energy prices, import dependence, and skewed pricing policies. In 2024-25, the subsidy is estimated to touch nearly ₹2 lakh crore, with projections of ₹2.5 lakh crore in FY26. The article argues not for withdrawal, but for reorientation of subsidies to correct price signals, improve nutrient balance, and enhance productivity while protecting farmers’ incomes.

Why Fertiliser Subsidy Reform Is Back in Focus

1. Fiscal Expansion: Fertiliser subsidy projected at ~₹2.5 lakh crore in FY26, compared to ₹1.37 lakh crore allocated to agriculture and farmers’ welfare.
2. Policy Asymmetry: Urea prices remain fixed and among the cheapest globally, while DAP and MOP prices are decontrolled.
3. Macroeconomic Risk: Heavy import dependence, ~78% for natural gas, ~90% for phosphatic fertilisers, and near-total dependence for potash, exposes India to global commodity shocks.
4. Structural Distortion: Price controls undercut the Nutrient-Based Subsidy (NBS) regime introduced in 2010.
5. Reform Window: Stable growth and low inflation provide a favourable macroeconomic context for politically difficult reforms.

How Price Controls Have Distorted Nutrient Use

1. Urea Price Fixation: Urea sold at a fixed price of ~₹242 per 45-kg bag encourages excessive nitrogen use.
2. NBS Design Flaw: Subsidy linked to nutrient content for P and K, but not applied uniformly to urea.
3. Skewed Consumption: Farmers over-apply nitrogen while under-applying phosphorus and potassium.
4. N:P:K Ratio Collapse: National ratio deteriorated to ~10.9:4:1 against the recommended 4:2:1.
5. State-Level Distortion: Punjab applies ~61% more nitrogen than recommended, underuses potassium by ~89%, and phosphorus by ~8%.

What Data Reveal About Productivity Outcomes

1. China Comparison:
   1. Fertiliser use: ~373 kg/ha (China) vs ~182 kg/ha (India).
   2. N:P:K ratio: ~2.6:1.1:1 (China) vs ~10.9:4:1 (India).
   3. Agri-GVA: ~$1.27 trillion (China) vs ~$0.63 trillion (India).
2. Land Productivity Gap: China generates double India’s agri-GVA despite similar cropped area.
3. Yield Plateauing: Excess nitrogen creates “lush green fields” but fails to increase yields or grain quality.
4. Soil Degradation: Imbalanced nutrient use reduces soil organic carbon and long-term productivity.

Why Nutrient Use Efficiency Remains Low

1. Low NUE Levels: Estimated at only 35-40%, indicating large nutrient losses.
2. Atmospheric Losses: Nitrogen escapes as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas ~278 times more potent than CO₂.
3. Water Pollution: Nitrate leaching contaminates groundwater, making it non-potable.
4. Diversion and Leakage: ~20-25% of subsidised urea diverted to non-agricultural uses or smuggled across borders.
5. Declining Response Ratio: Fertiliser-to-grain response ratio fell from ~1:10 (1970s) to ~1:2.7 (2015).

What Policy Design Lessons Emerge from China

1. Per-Unit Land Subsidy: Direct input subsidy on a per-mu basis rather than product-based price control.
2. Market-Determined Prices: Fertiliser prices allowed to reflect market conditions.
3. Innovation Incentives: Over 60% fertiliser consumption through complex fertilisers.
4. Integrated Nutrient Management: Policy steers farmers toward balanced nutrient application.
5. Outcome: Higher productivity with better nutrient balance despite higher fertilizer intensity.

What Reform Pathways Does the Article Propose

1. Gradual Price Decontrol: Phased dismantling of urea price controls.
2. Direct Income Support: Protects farmers through equivalent cash transfers.
3. NBS Recalibration: Reduce nitrogen subsidy while increasing support for phosphorus and potassium.
4. Micronutrient Promotion: Encourages customised blends and soluble fertilisers through fertigation.
5. Data Integration: Identification of tenant farmers using PM-KISAN data, land records, satellite imagery, and fertiliser sales.

What Are the Expected Gains from Reform

1. Fiscal Savings: Estimated annual savings of ~₹40,000 crore.
2. Resource Reallocation: Redirects funds toward agri-R&D, irrigation, and high-value agriculture.
3. Income Enhancement: Precision farming and balanced nutrients improve yield quality and farm profitability.
4. Environmental Protection: Reduces greenhouse emissions and groundwater contamination.
5. Growth Multiplier: Higher rural incomes stimulate demand for manufactured goods.

Conclusion

Reforming the fertiliser subsidy regime is not a question of fiscal retrenchment but of policy correction. By restoring price signals, improving nutrient balance, and protecting farmers through direct support, India can convert a distortionary subsidy into a productivity-enhancing instrument. The challenge is political, but the rewards are structural and long-term.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2014] What are the different types of agriculture subsidies given to farmers at the national and at state levels? Critically analyse the agricultural subsidy regime with reference to the distortions created by it.

Linkage: The question is directly relevant as it focuses on agricultural subsidies and the distortions arising from their design, a core GS III issue. The article offers concrete evidence of how fertiliser price controls create nutrient imbalance, fiscal stress, and environmental damage, strengthening the critical analysis required in this question.

 

Introduction

Gujarat’s cotton farmers are facing acute agrarian distress due to unprecedented rainfall, a sudden collapse in cotton prices, stagnant government procurement mechanisms, and the Union government’s decision to allow duty-free cotton imports. The crisis highlights deep structural vulnerabilities in India’s cotton economy, dependency on global markets, weak domestic safety nets, and uncertain price stabilisation mechanisms.

Why in the news

Cotton-growing districts of Gujarat have reported six farmer suicides within one month after heavy October rainfall drastically damaged crops and market prices crashed. This collapse is occurring despite cotton prices having remained high for nearly a decade. This marked a sharp reversal from the earlier trend of price stability and strong export demand.

Why are cotton farmers in Gujarat facing acute distress?

1. Heavy rainfall damage: Destroyed standing crops, especially in Saurashtra, forcing farmers like Dhanabhai and Bharatbhai to re-borrow for harvesting, labour, and picking.
2. Sudden price crash: Prices dropped to ₹7,200-₹8,200 per quintal, down from last season’s ₹10,000-₹11,000, while input costs (seeds, pesticides, diesel) remain high.
3. High production cost burden: Farmers reported spending close to ₹60,000 per hectare, but market prices provide no recovery of investment.
4. Delayed government compensation: Farmers received little to no compensation for rain-damaged cotton; most remain outside the formal support system.
5. Psychological stress: Multiple farmer suicides recorded; families cite inability to repay loans and the shock of unexpected price fall.

How have policy decisions worsened the crisis?

1. Duty-free cotton imports: Farmers argue that allowing imports when domestic arrival begins pushes prices further down.
2. Reduced import duty from 5% to zero: Facilitated cheaper imports from countries like US, Brazil, Egypt.
3. Timing mismatch: Import duty removal announced just before domestic arrivals, undermining farm-gate prices.
4. Procurement failure: The MSP of ₹7,750 remains non-functional because ginning mills and traders offer lower prices; many farmers cannot access MSP procurement centres.
5. GST on ginning industry: Ginning mills flagged 5% GST on textile waste (cotton seed oil cake and kapasiya) as an additional economic burden.

How are market dynamics affecting farmers?

1. Export slowdown: India is no longer the world’s top cotton exporter; Bangladesh, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Indonesia have cheaper alternatives.
2. High transportation costs: Freight charges and rising diesel prices raise processing and movement costs.
3. Shift in domestic consumption patterns: Mills increasingly depend on cheaper imported cotton, weakening domestic procurement.
4. Quality concerns: Heavy rain reduced cotton quality, lowering demand from ginning mills.
5. Ginners’ risks: Ginners avoid MSP procurement because they must sell at a loss in the global market.

What are farmers demanding from the government?

1. Immediate ban on cotton imports to stabilise domestic prices.
2. Higher MSP operations at the farm gate so farmers don’t bear transportation costs.
3. Real-time procurement centres within villages.
4. Compensation for rain-damaged crops through central or state intervention.
5. Market intervention scheme similar to groundnut and mustard procurement to ensure price stabilisation.

How are traders and mill owners responding to the crisis?

1. Ginners demand revival packages: They seek reduced GST and logistics support.
2. Push for long-term cotton policy: Industry requests structural support to modernise ginning infrastructure.
3. Preference for imported cotton: Imported cotton considered more consistent in quality, impacting local demand.
4. Call for farm-to-mill ecosystem: Mills argue for direct purchase systems that reduce intermediaries.

Conclusion

The cotton crisis in Gujarat reveals a deeper structural challenge in India’s agricultural economy, policy unpredictability, global price sensitivity, inadequate MSP operations, and climate-driven crop volatility. Without strong procurement support, import regulation, and farmer-centric institutional mechanisms, cotton farmers remain exposed to extreme price fluctuations and rising indebtedness. Sustainable stabilisation of the cotton economy requires coordinated action across trade, agriculture, and industry.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2017] What are the major reasons for declining rice and wheat yield in the cropping system? How crop diversification is helpful to stabilise the yield of the crops in the system?

Linkage: The question links to the article’s theme of monocropping-led vulnerability, as seen in cotton farmers’ distress. It reinforces how diversification stabilises yields and incomes when single-crop systems fail.