As geopolitical shocks expose the fragility of India’s fertiliser supply chains, a quiet revolution in biological agriculture offers a compelling answer — not just for this season, but for generations of farmers to come.

India’s strategic conversation is dominated by energy security, defence preparedness and digital sovereignty. Fertilisers rarely command the same urgency. They should. The agricultural inputs that feed 1.4 billion people are sourced, to an alarming degree, from some of the world’s most unstable shipping corridors.

The numbers tell an unambiguous story. India is the world’s largest importer of Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP). Nearly 90 per cent of its potash requirement is sourced from abroad. Key suppliers — Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco — route their shipments largely through the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. When those corridors are disrupted, the consequences are not abstract geopolitical inconveniences. They translate into seed-bed shortages, price spikes and direct income losses for tens of millions of smallholder farmers.

Recent disruptions along these routes have already forced India to confront this reality. In the first seven months of the current financial year, fertiliser imports jumped nearly 70 per cent year-on-year. Total imports are now projected to reach 22.3 million tonnes — a 41 per cent increase over the previous year. Urea imports surged by 120 per cent; DAP imports rose 94 per cent. DAP was trading at $554 per tonne in September 2025, with further price pressure expected if maritime instability persists.

The fiscal cost is equally striking. India’s fertiliser subsidy bill has reached ₹1.83 lakh crore. The country is not reducing its import dependency season by season. It is deepening it.

Efficiency Crisis Beneath the Import Crisis

Import dependence is, however, only one dimension of the problem. Equally troubling is how inefficiently India uses the fertilisers it already applies.

India’s NPK application ratio has deteriorated to approximately 10:9:4 — a severe imbalance when measured against the agronomic benchmark of 4:2:1. This distortion is not merely a scientific footnote. It has real and compounding consequences for soils, waterways and farm economics.

A significant fraction of applied fertiliser nutrients are never absorbed by crops. They are lost through volatilisation, denitrification, leaching and runoff. Each kilogram lost to inefficiency represents a direct transfer of value away from farmers — and a cost borne ultimately by public finances through the subsidy mechanism.

Decades of heavy chemical inputs have also depleted soil organic carbon and diminished microbial diversity — the very biological infrastructure that enables efficient nutrient cycling. The paradox is pointed: more fertiliser is being applied, yet less of it is reaching the crop.

Simply importing more will not resolve this structural dysfunction. The solution demands a fundamentally different approach.

To read more, click: https://online.anyflip.com/unmb/tswe/mobile/index.html