Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The Union Agriculture Ministry has launched a month-long nationwide “Save the Fields” campaign from June 1. Around the same time, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) have joined hands under a health initiative aimed at addressing concerns linked to human well-being.
But amid these efforts, a fundamental question remains unanswered: who is responsible for pushing India’s farmlands into intensive care and exposing millions to health risks?
advertisement
Fertiliser and pesticide companies earned enormous profits. Policymakers framed the rules. Scientists celebrated record production and collected accolades. Yet today, when soil health has deteriorated and concerns over food and water safety are mounting, the burden is being shifted onto farmers and taxpayers.
If companies profited from chemical-intensive agriculture and institutions claimed credit for making India food self-sufficient, why should farmers alone be blamed for the damage? And more importantly, why should taxpayers foot the bill for repairing fields that were degraded under a system encouraged by governments, experts and corporations?
WHY WAS THE TRUTH HIDDEN?
History must be viewed in context. During the Green Revolution, from the 1960s through the 1980s, chemical fertilisers were essential. The scientists of that era played a historic role in pulling India out of food scarcity and helping the country achieve self-sufficiency in grain production. The real failure came later.
Once India had secured food security, policymakers, agricultural institutions and scientists had a moral responsibility to educate farmers about the long-term risks of excessive chemical use and promote balanced nutrient management. Instead, the focus remained overwhelmingly on increasing yields.
Had farmers been adequately informed, fertiliser consumption might have moderated. Sales would have slowed. The appearance of ever-rising productivity would have faded. Rather than encouraging a transition to sustainable practices, the system continued to reward chemical-intensive farming.
Farmers were shown lush green fields and rising yields. Fertiliser and pesticide sales kept growing. Companies expanded their markets, governments showcased production figures and institutions celebrated agricultural success. Few were willing to acknowledge the long-term costs.
The result is visible today in declining soil quality across large parts of the country.
SCIENTISTS WON AWARDS, FARMERS BECAME VILLAINS
For decades, farmers followed the advice they received from agricultural departments, extension workers and scientific institutions. They were encouraged to maximise production through heavy use of urea, DAP and pesticides while extracting ever more groundwater to sustain intensive cultivation.
Record harvests became symbols of success. Scientists and policymakers celebrated higher output. Awards were collected, reports highlighted achievements and institutions took credit for agricultural growth.
Now, as concerns emerge over deteriorating soil fertility, groundwater contamination and health impacts, the narrative appears to be changing. Farmers are increasingly portrayed as the primary offenders for overusing fertilisers and pesticides.
But were these decisions made by farmers alone?
The policies came from governments. The recommendations came from experts. Subsidies supported fertiliser consumption. Companies aggressively marketed their products. Farmers largely followed the system that was built around them.
They did not design a fertiliser policy. They did not determine subsidy structures. They did not formulate agricultural advisories. They largely acted on the guidance provided by governments, scientists and agricultural institutions.
Holding them solely responsible ignores decades of institutional influence.
WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE?
The scale of nutrient imbalance in Indian agriculture highlights the problem.
India’s ideal N:P ratio (Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium) is generally considered to be 4:2:1. However, the national average has reportedly reached 9.3:3.5:1, indicating excessive dependence on nitrogen-rich fertilisers such as urea.
In practical terms, one bag of potash should be accompanied by no more than four bags of urea. Yet official data for 2024-25 suggests that nitrogen application has significantly exceeded recommended levels in many regions.
Correcting such imbalances should have been a core responsibility of agricultural ministries, research institutions and state departments. Farmers cannot be expected to independently assess complex nutrient management systems without consistent guidance and support.
If awareness campaigns about excessive fertiliser use were inadequate, accountability must extend beyond the farm gate.
PROFITS FOR COMPANIES, COSTS FOR TAXPAYERS
The economics of this arrangement deserve far greater scrutiny than they currently receive.
Taxpayers finance massive fertiliser subsidies every year. These subsidies support the production and sale of chemical fertilisers. Companies benefit from the system, while farmers are encouraged to purchase inputs that promise higher yields.
Companies profit from fertiliser sales. Governments subsidise those sales using public money. Then, when soil degradation becomes a national concern, taxpayers are once again asked to finance restoration programmes aimed at repairing the damage.
In effect, taxpayers pay twice: first through subsidies and then through rehabilitation efforts.
This raises an uncomfortable question. If private companies earned substantial profits from decades of fertiliser sales, why should the public bear the full cost of repairing the environmental consequences?
Shouldn’t those who benefited most from the system contribute more substantially to fixing the problem?
TIME FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
Campaigns to save India’s soils are necessary. There is little debate about that. But genuine reform requires acknowledging how the crisis developed in the first place.
Agricultural institutions, policymakers and fertiliser manufacturers must examine their role in promoting practices that encouraged excessive dependence on chemical inputs. Without accountability, restoration efforts risk becoming little more than damage control funded by public money.
If soil degradation is a national emergency, responsibility should be shared by all stakeholders who contributed to it.
THE HIDDEN THREAT OF NITRATES AND NITROUS OXIDE
Punjab and Haryana are often singled out for excessive fertiliser use, but the problem extends far beyond those states.
Data cited by agricultural experts show nutrient ratios of 29.8:6.5:1 in Punjab and 29.2:7.3:1 in Haryana, indicating heavy dependence on nitrogen fertilisers. Yet other states have also moved far from recommended levels.
Nagaland reportedly records an alarming ratio of 101:5.8:1. Rajasthan stands at 45.7:15:1, while Jharkhand is estimated at 37.3:11:1.
Such imbalances affect not only soil health but also human health.
Years of excessive urea and DAP use have damaged the biological life that keeps soil productive. Earthworms and beneficial microorganisms that help maintain soil fertility have steadily declined in many areas. As a result, large stretches of farmland are becoming harder, less fertile and increasingly dependent on chemical inputs.
Excess nitrogen from fertilisers can leach into groundwater as nitrate. According to data from the Central Ground Water Board, nitrate contamination exceeding safe limits has been reported in hundreds of districts across the country. The World Health Organisation and the Bureau of Indian Standards prescribe a safe nitrate limit of 45 milligrams per litre in drinking water.
The result is growing concern about the long-term health implications of contaminated groundwater in rural India.
Meanwhile, many farmers mistake the artificial greening caused by excessive urea application as a sign of healthy crop growth. In reality, excessive nitrogen can weaken plants, make crops more vulnerable to pests and diseases, and increase dependence on pesticides, creating yet another cycle of costs and environmental damage.
Excessive fertiliser use also affects the climate. Surplus nitrogen can be released into the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. It contributes to global warming and damages the ozone layer.
What appears beneficial in the short term can impose enormous costs in the long run.
The effort to save India’s fields is welcome. But the debate cannot stop at soil restoration. It must also address responsibility. Fertiliser manufacturers profited. Policymakers promoted the system. Scientific institutions endorsed it. Farmers followed it.
If decades of chemical-intensive agriculture have left soils depleted, groundwater contaminated and public health under strain, why should the entire cost of repair be borne by taxpayers?
When profits were private, why should the losses now be public?
– Ends
(Disclaimer: The article has been authored by Om Prakash, Editor, Kisan Tak. Views expressed are personal.)
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
