Why in the News
In a column in the Indian Express (26 October 2026), Ashok Gulati and Ritika Juneja of ICRIER have said that the imbalanced use of fertilisers is damaging soil health and increasing the subsidy burden. According to the authors, the fertiliser subsidy budget for 2026-27 is Rs 1.71 lakh crore, and a disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could take this bill to Rs 2.5 to Rs 3 lakh crore. This is the authors' estimate, not an official figure. The column also mentions the Rabi campaign "Khet Bachao Abhiyan" launched by Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan at Karnal (Haryana) on 22 October.
What the Problem Is (According to the Column)
- NPK imbalance: Citing an ICRIER policy paper, nitrogen use has risen from 7 per cent below the recommended quantity to 6 per cent above it. The phosphorus deficiency has gone from 29 to 22 per cent, while the potash deficiency has risen from 48 to 72 per cent. The N:P:K ratio is 10.5:4.1:1, while the recommended ratio is stated as 2.8:1.5:1.
- Cause (the authors' argument): Under nutrient-based subsidy (NBS, 2010), the prices of phosphate and potash moved with the market, but the price of urea stayed fixed. The farmer therefore got nitrogen cheap. According to the column, between 2010-11 and 2024-25 DAP became nearly three times and MOP six times costlier, while the price of nitrogen in urea rose only 1 per cent.
- Effect on soil and environment: Of the 96 lakh samples tested under the Soil Health Card scheme in 2025-26, 72 per cent were found low in nitrogen, 52 per cent in organic carbon, 42 per cent in boron, and 37 per cent in zinc. The column also says excess nitrogen increases nitrous oxide emissions and the problem of nitrate in groundwater.
- Fiscal aspect: According to the authors, the benefit of subsidy is unequal. Punjab receives roughly 10 times the per-hectare nitrogen subsidy of Kerala.
The Four Suggested Steps (of the Authors)
- One: Replace input-price subsidy with a per-hectare direct benefit transfer (DBT) that is neutral towards nutrients and crops. If this feels abrupt, bring urea under NBS and reduce the prices of DAP and MOP.
- Two: Reward States that use fertiliser in a balanced way. According to the authors, no amount has been given so far under PM-PRANAM.
- Three: Spend the savings from subsidy on drip irrigation, fertigation, and new products (customised and coated fertilisers, bio and nano fertilisers).
- Four: Follow the 4R approach (right source, rate, time, and place), with advice based on soil testing. According to the authors, without correcting electricity pricing and procurement in Punjab-Haryana, this is hard to sustain.
Analysis
- Arguments in favour: Changing the price signal can create an incentive for balanced use, and the savings can go into irrigation and innovation.
- Concerns: Identifying tenant farmers in DBT is difficult (the column also accepts this as a challenge). A sudden price change can affect farmers. The enlarged subsidy bill linked to Hormuz is only an estimate.
Mains Practice Question
"The current structure of fertiliser subsidy puts pressure on both soil health and the exchequer. Suggest a balanced reform roadmap." (GS-III, 250 words)
Answer Outline
Introduction: Give the context of NPK imbalance after NBS and the pressure of subsidy.
Main Body: Price distortion, effects on soil and environment, and reforms such as DBT, incentives for States, 4R, and irrigation innovation.
Conclusion: Say that the measure of success should be balanced nutrient supply, not total use, and that reforms should be phased.
Sources and Limitations
- Indian Express (Opinion), 26 October 2026 (read): We need to address the issue of soil health. Four steps can improve the situation
- Limitations: The figures and suggestions are the authors' (citing an ICRIER policy paper); the original policy paper was not checked here. The Rs 2.5-3 lakh crore subsidy bill is an estimate.