Context:

• Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan launched the ‘Khet Bachao Abhiyan’ (Save the Farm Campaign) in Karnal, Haryana, urging farmers to adopt balanced use of chemical fertilisers.
• Excessive and imbalanced application is degrading soil health, contaminating groundwater and increasing air pollution.
• However, farmer behaviour is strongly influenced by fertiliser prices. Despite the Nutrient-Based Subsidy (NBS) introduced in 2010 to correct nutrient imbalance, India’s fertiliser use has become more skewed towards nitrogen (N).

Worsening N:P Imbalance:

• An ICRIER policy brief (Repurposing India’s Fertiliser Policy towards Nutrient Optimisation) compares actual nutrient use with crop- and irrigation-specific recommended doses across 20 major States between 2009-10 and 2024-25.
• Nitrogen (N) use has shifted from 7% below the recommended level to 6% above it. The phosphorus (P) deficit has narrowed only from 29% to 22%.
• Potassium (K) deficit has widened sharply from 48% to 72%. Farmers apply only 9 kg of potash/ha against a requirement of 32 kg.
• As a result, India’s N:P ratio is 10.5:4.1:1, against the normative 2.8:1.5:1. 11 of 20 States overuse nitrogen, while every State underuses potassium.
• Punjab and Jharkhand are among the largest nitrogen overusers, while Haryana and Jharkhand use only around one-tenth of their required potassium.

Perverse Price Signals:

• The principal problem is the unequal subsidy structure. NBS allowed prices of phosphatic and potassic fertilisers to respond to global markets, while urea remained under a heavily controlled price regime.
• For example, between 2010-11 and 2024-25, Diammonium phosphate (DAP) prices nearly tripled to ₹54/kg, muriate of potash (MOP) prices increased six-fold to ₹52/kg, while the price of nitrogen contained in urea rose by only 1%.
• Consequently, farmers have a strong economic incentive to use urea. Nitrogen also produces visible short-term greening, whereas potassium deficiency often manifests gradually through lower resilience and productivity.
• Nitrogen’s share in total NPK use has consequently returned to around 67%, comparable to the level in 1970-71. 

Environmental and Nutritional Costs:

• The imbalance is damaging both soil health and human health. For example, under the Soil Health Card (SHC) programme, among 96 lakh samples tested in 2025-26 -
  • 72% were low in nitrogen;
  • 52% in organic carbon;
  • 42% in boron; and
  • 37% in zinc.
• Excess nitrogen application is inefficient because crops absorb only 30-40% of applied nitrogen. The remainder can enter the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, or leach into groundwater as nitrate.
• Nitrate contamination above safe limits has been reported in parts of 502 districts, posing risks including infant methemoglobinemia (“blue baby syndrome”) and chronic health problems.
• Potassium deficiency reduces crop resistance to drought and disease, while phosphorus deficiency can delay flowering.
• Micronutrient deficiencies also reduce nutritional quality of food, contributing to hidden hunger.

Fiscal and Regional Costs:

• The fertiliser subsidy allocation for 2026-27 is ₹1.71 lakh crore. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could raise this to ₹2.5-3 lakh crore, with urea accounting for about two-thirds.
• The subsidy structure is also regionally unequal. Punjab receives around ₹25,700 of nitrogen subsidy per hectare, nearly ten times Kerala’s level.
• Combined with MSP-based procurement and subsidised electricity, cheap fertilisers reinforce the rice-wheat cropping pattern, intensifying groundwater depletion in north-western India.

Way Forward:

• Shift from input subsidy to nutrient-neutral support:
  • Move towards per-hectare Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) that is neutral across nutrients and crops.
  • This would expose farmers to market prices and remove urea’s artificial price advantage.
  • AgriStack’s farmer IDs and land-linked digital infrastructure could facilitate targeted transfers, although identifying tenant farmers remains a challenge.
  • Alternatively, urea could gradually be brought under NBS while reducing DAP and MOP prices.
• Incentivise States: PM-PRANAM should be strengthened and implemented effectively to reward States that reduce excessive fertiliser use and promote nutrient balance.
• Redirect subsidy savings: Savings should support drip irrigation, fertigation and fertiliser innovation, including customised/coated fertilisers, triple super phosphate (TSP), biofertilisers, nano-fertilisers and nitrogen-efficient seeds.
• Promote the 4Rs:
  • Right Source, Right Rate, Right Time and Right Place — using plot-level soil-test-based recommendations.
  • Crop diversification and cereal-pulse rotations can further reduce nitrogen requirements.
  • However, meaningful change in Punjab and Haryana also requires reform of electricity pricing and procurement incentives.

Conclusion:

• India must shift the policy yardstick from the quantity of fertiliser consumed to the balanced supply of nutrients.
• Fertiliser policy must simultaneously address soil health, groundwater depletion, fiscal sustainability, climate change and nutritional security.
• Without correcting the underlying price and procurement incentives, awareness campaigns alone are unlikely to reverse the nutrient imbalance.