Mainstream WeeklyIntroduction
India’s agricultural policy is increasingly caught between two competing imperatives. The first need to focus on feeding the population that is expected to exceed 1.5 billion within next decade. The second is the growing concern over sustainable agricultural practices, soil fertility, clean water, and low crop production. Policymakers have addressed this issue by implementing initiatives to promote natural farming, improve soil health, foster climate-resilient agriculture, and establish sustainable production systems. However, there is a notable absurdity in public spending patterns. Despite sustainability being a key policy goal, financial support predominantly favors agriculture reliant on chemical inputs. This inconsistency is particularly evident in how public funds are allocated. Fertilizer subsidies remain one of the largest segments of agricultural spending, amounting to nearly Rs 1.92 lakh crore in 2024–25. In contrast, funding for agricultural research, innovation, and technological advancement remains relatively limited and, in fact, reduced in the current budget. This disparity in spending priorities prompts a crucial question: if reducing reliance on chemicals is increasingly seen as vital for the long-term sustainability of agriculture, why does public policy still allocate significantly more resources to chemical inputs rather than to developing alternatives?
India’s agriculture sustains 18% of the world’s population on just 2.4% of global land, reflecting a remarkable achievement in food production, yet at the cost of severe environmental degradation, with nearly half its land degraded (Kumar et al., 2025). This shows the peak of a chemical-intensive model that boosts short-term yields but erodes soil fertility, contaminates water, and threatens long-term food security. The problem is acute: pesticide use peaked at 63,284 tonnes in 2021–22 before easing to 52,466 tonnes in 2022–23, with hotspots like Punjab nearly twice the national average per hectare (Janaki Rani et al., 2025). Up to 80–90% of these chemicals miss targets, polluting soil and water, contributing 25% to global soil degradation, and depleting nutrients—nitrogen by 42%, phosphorus by 27%, sulfur by 33% (Kashyap et al., 2024; Rayjada & Bhattacharya, 2025; Shit et al., 2023; Varaprasad & Rao, 2024). To induce consumption, fertilizer subsidies ballooned to ₹1.92 lakh crore in 2024–25, exacerbating overuse, while R&D funding via the Department of Agricultural Research and Education was slashed to ₹9,967 crore in the 2026 budget. This is a major policy contradiction in the agriculture sector. This fiscal imbalance—prioritising inputs over innovation—accelerates degradation affecting one-third of India’s land (Sharma et al., 2022).
The persistence of chemical-intensive agriculture is evident from both input-use trends and public expenditure patterns. Figure 1 shows that while the total cultivated area increased from 141.6 million hectares in 2018–19 to 207.6 million hectares in 2022–23, the area treated with chemical pesticides expanded from 81.1 million hectares to 108.2 million hectares during the same period. In contrast, the area under biopesticides, although rising from 7.1 million hectares to 15.6 million hectares, remained only a small fraction of chemically treated land. The data suggest that biological alternatives are expanding, but not at a pace sufficient to alter the structure of input use in Indian agriculture.
Figure 1: Trends in cultivated area and pesticide use in India (2018–19 to 2022–23)
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. States/UTs Zonal Conferences on Inputs (Plant Protection) for Kharif and Rabi Seasons, 2018–19 to 2022–23.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 can give a more detailed idea of the depth of the pesticide and chemical fertilizer use in India, state-wise. The map reveals clear regional disparities, with states such as Punjab and Maharashtra falling within the high or very high pesticide-use categories, whereas several northeastern states exhibit relatively low levels of pesticide dependence. These patterns suggest that chemical-intensive agriculture is not uniformly distributed across the country but is concentrated in regions characterised by commercialised farming, irrigation-intensive production systems, and long-standing reliance on external inputs. The persistence of high-intensity pesticide use in parts of northwestern and western India reflects the legacy of Green Revolution technologies, where productivity gains have historically been achieved through increased application of fertilisers and pesticides. By contrast, states with lower pesticide intensity demonstrate that agricultural production can occur under different input regimes, although differences in crop composition, market integration, and agroecological conditions must also be considered.
Figure 2: Top ten states with highest pesticide consumption in India (2021–22)
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. States/UTs Zonal Conferences on Inputs (Plant Protection), 2021–22.
Figure 3: State-wise classification of pesticide use intensity in India (2021–22)
Source: Author’s compilation based on data from the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India (Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1069, December 13, 2022);
The spatial variation observed in Figure 3 has important policy implications. It suggests that the challenge of reducing chemical dependence cannot be addressed through a uniform national strategy. States with high pesticide intensity are likely to require targeted interventions, including precision farming technologies, integrated pest management, soil restoration programmes, and stronger extension services to facilitate transition pathways. At the same time, states with relatively low pesticide use offer valuable lessons for designing more sustainable production systems. The evidence, therefore, points to the need for region-specific approaches that recognise the diverse ecological and institutional conditions under which Indian agriculture operates.
Chemicalised farming: What are the long-term costs
The long-term impact of chemicalized farming cannot be ignored. Continuous use drastically reduces soil fertility, leading to increased chemical use in every production cycle; this, in turn, results in water pollution, air pollution, and health hazards as collateral effects. Consequently, crop yields are decreasing. Intensive farming has caused severe erosion on about half of India’s land. (Kumar et al., 2025). The ecological impact of intensive farming is evident in land degradation, particularly in Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. About one-third of India’s land is degraded due to unsustainable agricultural practices (ICAR, 2022). Converting chemically treated land into organic will also take a long term, around 5 years of transition period. During this transition, production will initially decline, affecting the farmer’s income. Production will increase once the land is fully converted to organic farming. The loss of production for 4 years will be one of the major costs incurred during the conversion. Many of the farmers claimed that organic farming methods won’t yield as much as chemical farming.
What is being done, and what more is required?
Post the Green Revolution, with strong advocacy of chemicalized farming, it became a normal practice in Indian agriculture, where most of the farmers are focused on yield rather than land health. This action made the land infertile after a few years and required more fertiliser to maintain the same level of production. Subsidies for the fertilizer induced this process. In the other side the government strongly promotes programs such as the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) and Soil Health Cards, which promote crop rotation and balanced inputs and reduce chemical inputs. Implementation of advanced technologies in agriculture has reduced the crop loss to a certain extent, but not fully. Technologies such as AIdriven sprayer robots developed by Niqo Robotics demonstrate that substantial reductions in chemical use—up to 50–60%—are possible without abandoning productivity goals. High-tech agronomy programs have been supported by the DARE/ICAR budgets.
Here is the importance of R&D in the agriculture sector. It has to be experimented with: innovative ideas for increasing yield using organic methods, along with technological advancements, that reduce chemical use and promote healthy crops. Although the desire to consume and produce healthy food is prevalent, meeting the food demands of a large population solely through organic farming is not feasible. Therefore, a gradual transition from chemical farming is necessary, accompanied by corresponding technological advancements. This transition requires financial resources, which are currently insufficient. The reduction in R&D funding undermines the efforts of scientists dedicated to sustainable agricultural practices and technological progress. Conversely, subsidies for chemical fertilisers persist. In light of these challenges, we propose a few recommendations.
The government has to increase funding for R&D and gradually reduce funding for subsidies, because the entire land cannot be converted into organic land, as chemically treated land requires a minimum of 4-5 years as a transition period. So gradually, the land has to be shifted, and the loss incurred during the transition of erosion has to be borne by the government; only then will the farmers be willing to do the same. Widespread implementation of precision farming and advancing it to a digital twin in agriculture can drastically reduce chemical use. Precision spraying increases crop production by about 10% (preventing pest losses with significantly less chemical). Improving soil fertility helps save water and gives better results over time.
We also need to focus on educating farmers on time through training and masterclasses, as they need to be updated on technology and aware of environmental concerns. One of the major concerns here is that the technological advancement has to be cost-effective; otherwise, small and medium-scale farmers will be out of the scheme due to affordability issues. Promoting biopesticides, restoring R&D, and mandating Integrated Pest Management training are more cost-effective reforms than current subsidies.
A nationwide shift from chemical-intensive agriculture to technology-supported organic farming cannot happen overnight. Food security concerns and the lengthy transition period require a phased, district-wise approach. Governments must support farmers during the initial years of lower productivity while ensuring adequate food supplies. Although the process may take 15–20 years, it is essential for building a more sustainable agricultural future.
Unchecked chemical use harms India’s land for short-term gain. Ensuring food security while protecting the environment can be achieved by adopting a balanced approach that combines organic methods and modern technology with agroecological principles and supporting farmers’ livelihoods. Reducing subsidies helps mitigate pollution but may also adversely affect farmers’ incomes. So, the balanced solution lies in integrating organic farming with modern technology and the land conversion supported by the government can be a good idea. However, these changes required more research and development in the agricultural sector to successfully establish an alternative to chemical farming. So, more innovation and research are needed in this area. India’s environmental ambitions will remain difficult to achieve as long as policies continue to reward chemical-intensive agriculture while advocating ecological sustainability with a reduction in R&D funding.
Reference
- Kashyap, U., Garg, S., & Arora, P. (2024). Pesticide pollution in India: environmental and health risks, and policy challenges. Toxicology Reports, 13, 101801.
- Kumar, A., Bhople, B. S., & Jeganathan, J. (2025). Balancing food security and environmental health: the dual challenge of pesticide use in India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 32(9), 4949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-025-36009-y
- Rayjada, N., & Bhattacharya, C. (2025). The Environmental Journey and Bioremediation of Chemical Pesticides. Current World Environment, 20(2),
- 543. https://doi.org/10.12944/cwe.20.2.2
- Sharma, B. M., Scheringer, M., Chakraborty, P., Bharat, G. K., Steindal, E. H., Trasande, L., & Nizzetto, L. (2022). Unlocking India’s Potential in Managing Endocrine-Disrupting
- Chemicals (EDCs): Importance, Challenges, and Opportunities. Exposure and
- Health, 15(4), 841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-022-00519-8
- Shit, P., Bhattacharjee, I., Chakravorty, P. P., Jana, H., & Sakai, Y. (2023). Pesticide Soil
- Pollution: An Overview about Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Remediation
- Technologies. Current World Environment, 18(2),
- 752. https://doi.org/10.12944/cwe.18.2.25
- Varaprasad, K. S., & Rao, T. V. (2024). Perspective Chapter: Agroecology-Based Natural Farming in India. In IntechOpen eBooks.
- IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113972
- Janaki Rani, A., Kavitha, B., Abirami, S., Narmadha, N., Murugan, P. P., Sumathi, E., ... & Manimekalai, R. (2025). Pesticide in Indian agriculture: Consumption pattern and farmers perception. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.6210
(Authors: Dr. Deepa Palathingal, Assistant Professor in Economics and fellow at Centre for Studies in Population and Development;
Palak Kunwar, Economics and Mathematics Honours student and intern at Centre for Studies in Population and Development, Christ Deemed to be University, Delhi NCR)
Corresponding author: deepa.palathingal[at]christuniversity.in