India's paddy-wheat monoculture in North India is an ecological and economic liability. Discuss the challenges and policy imperatives for agricultural diversification with reference to pulses.

Q. India's paddy-wheat monoculture in North India is an ecological and economic liability. Discuss the challenges and policy imperatives for agricultural diversification with reference to pulses. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Green Revolution secured cereal self-sufficiency, but assured MSP and procurement locked Punjab-Haryana into a wheat-paddy cycle. The Supreme Court's March 2026 direction to incentivise pulses [1] confirms that this cropping pattern has become both ecologically and fiscally costly.

The liability: ecological and economic - Groundwater depletion: water-intensive paddy in a semi-arid belt has driven aquifer decline; the Court itself questioned whether such paddy volumes are required [1]. - Soil and air: continuous monoculture causes soil exhaustion, heavy nitrogenous fertiliser use, and stubble burning across the Indo-Gangetic plain. - Import dependence: despite record output of 252.38 lakh MT in 2024-25, India imported 47.38 lakh MT of pulses in 2023-24 against exports of only 5.94 lakh MT — a forex drain and exposure to global price shocks [2]. - Fiscal burden: open-ended cereal procurement and storage costs crowd out support for protein crops.

Challenges to diversification - Weak price incentive: MSP for pulses often fails to cover small farmers' actual cultivation costs, and MSP carries no statutory backing [3]. - Procurement design flaw: the Price Support Scheme under PM-AASHA activates only after market prices fall below MSP, so farmers absorb the risk first [4]. - Trade policy distortion: duty-free import of yellow peas, permitted till 20 February 2025, suppressed domestic pulse prices [2]. - Federal friction: agriculture is a State subject (Schedule VII, List II, Entry 14), requiring Centre-State convergence on irrigation and marketing.

Policy imperatives - Assured offtake: Budget 2025's 100% procurement of tur, urad and masoor till 2028-29 and PM-AASHA's enhanced ₹60,000 crore guarantee must reach the field [3]. - Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses (2025-26 to 2030-31): seed replacement, rice-fallow area expansion and processing units [5]. - Stable tariff policy and ground-level expert consultation, as the Court directed [1].

Diversification is not merely a cropping choice but a route to water security, soil health and protein nutrition. Aligning MSP realism, guaranteed procurement and predictable trade policy can make nitrogen-fixing pulses genuinely remunerative — advancing both farmer income and the SDG goals of zero hunger and sustainable land use.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Supreme Court of India — order of the CJI Surya Kant bench (16 March 2026) directing the Centre to revisit crop-diversification policy, convene stakeholders and constitute a ground-level expert committee (exact order page not verifiable online) 2. Production and Import of Pulses — PIB — pulse production, 47.38 lakh MT imports and 5.94 lakh MT exports (2023-24), duty-free yellow pea window till 20 February 2025 3. Minimum Support Prices: From Safety Net to Self-Sufficiency — PIB — 100% procurement guarantee for tur, urad, masoor till 2028-29; PM-AASHA cover raised from ₹45,000 crore to ₹60,000 crore 4. Cabinet approves continuation of PM-AASHA — PIB — Price Support Scheme design and its price-trigger mechanism for pulses 5. Union Cabinet Approves Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses (2025-26 to 2030-31) — PIB — mission period, seed distribution, rice-fallow area expansion and processing units