West Asia crisis opens space for fertiliser policy reform

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call to Indian farmers to cut chemical fertiliser consumption by half and move towards “natural farming” may not be practical or desirable. The underlying intent, though, may only be to curtail demand and push farmers to use fertilisers judiciously — which is sensible and necessary. Fertilisers supply essential nutrients to crops like nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and sulphur (S) for them to yield harvestable produce. Unfortunately, India has very little natural gas and hardly any rock phosphate, potash or elemental sulphur reserves to produce fertilisers, forcing heavy reliance on imports. That’s being tested now by the conflict in West Asia and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which up to 30 per cent of global fertiliser trade passed till recently.

Successive governments have erred by not just subsidising fertilisers — which entails outflow of scarce foreign exchange — but also encouraging the overuse of high-analysis products, especially urea and di-ammonium phosphate (DAP), causing severe soil nutrient imbalances. Farmers were initially applying fertilisers such as ammonium sulphate (containing 20.5 per cent N and 23 per cent S) and single super phosphate (16 per cent P and 11 per cent S). These gave way to urea and DAP, having very high (46 per cent) content of N and P respectively, with no other macro or micro nutrients. The nutrient use efficiency of the latter fertilisers is low; only around a third of the N in urea is absorbed by the plants, with the rest lost through volatilisation as ammonia gas or leaching underground after conversion into nitrate. Farmers require products that deliver nutrients more efficiently.

The government should simply free or raise the retail prices of fertilisers to their import parity levels. It can replace the existing product-wise subsidy regime with a per-acre payment of, say, Rs 5,000 for all cultivating farmers. The monies from both the fertiliser subsidy savings and PM-Kisan could be redirected towards a direct income support scheme. The West Asia crisis has made the present system of subsidy and price controls on fertilisers unsustainable both fiscally and physically: When product availability is itself a problem, how much can one subsidise? Either way, it opens up space for reform that cannot wait any longer.

Overall Analysis

The editorial discusses how the ongoing crisis in West Asia has exposed India’s vulnerability in the fertiliser sector and created an opportunity for long-pending policy reforms. The writer begins by referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s appeal for reduced chemical fertiliser usage and a shift toward natural farming. While the editorial considers this target impractical, it interprets the broader intention positively — encouraging balanced and efficient fertiliser use.

The article then explains India’s structural dependence on imports for key fertiliser ingredients such as natural gas, phosphate, potash, and sulphur. By linking this dependence to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz during the West Asia conflict, the writer highlights how global geopolitical tensions directly threaten India’s agricultural stability. The language here is analytical and fact-driven, using economic and scientific reasoning rather than emotional argument.

A major focus of the editorial is the criticism of India’s fertiliser subsidy policy. The author argues that governments have unintentionally promoted the excessive use of urea and DAP because these products are heavily subsidised and cheap. This has led to soil degradation and nutrient imbalance. The comparison between older balanced fertilisers and newer “high-analysis” fertilisers demonstrates how agricultural policy can shape farming practices over time. Scientific explanations about nitrogen loss through volatilisation and leaching add technical depth and strengthen the credibility of the argument.

In the final section, the editorial strongly advocates reform. Instead of subsidising products, it proposes direct income support for farmers through per-acre payments. The writer suggests that such a system would reduce fiscal burden, improve efficiency, and give farmers greater freedom in choosing inputs. The closing argument is persuasive and urgent, presenting the West Asia crisis not merely as a challenge but as a rare opportunity to overhaul an unsustainable system.

The editorial uses a blend of economics, agriculture, and policy analysis, maintaining clarity while discussing technical subjects. Its language is formal, evidence-based, and solution-oriented.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Judiciously – in a careful, wise, and sensible manner.
2. Volatilisation – conversion of a substance into gas form.
3. Leaching – loss of nutrients by water moving through soil.
4. Import parity – pricing based on the cost of importing a product.
5. Unsustainable – unable to continue for a long period without causing problems.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that India’s current fertiliser subsidy system is economically and environmentally flawed. The West Asia crisis has exposed these weaknesses and created momentum for reforms focused on efficiency, balanced nutrient use, and direct farmer support instead of product subsidies.

Tone: Analytical, reform-oriented, and pragmatic.