1. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026
Ministry: Ministry of Mines | Status: Bill introduced in Lok Sabha on 10 August 2026; passed by both Houses
Why in News
Parliament passed the MMDR Amendment Bill/Act, 2026, to create a uniform and predictable fiscal framework for India’s mineral sector by restricting the power of State governments to impose fresh taxes and levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands.
Background: The Constitutional Tangle
- Mining sits at the intersection of the Union and State Lists:
- Entry 54, Union List — Parliament can regulate mines and mineral development “to the extent declared expedient in public interest.”
- Entry 23, State List — States regulate mines, subject to Union List provisions.
- Entry 50, State List — States can tax mineral rights, but subject to any limitations Parliament imposes via law relating to mineral development.
- Entry 49, State List — States can tax land, including mining land.
- The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) is the principal central law; it lets the Centre control mining “in public interest” under Section 2.
- Mineral Area Development Authority (MADA) vs. Steel Authority of India, 2024 (Supreme Court, 9-judge bench) was the trigger event: the Court held that
- States do have legislative power to tax mineral rights (Entry 50), though Parliament can limit this by law.
- The 1957 Act, as it stood, placed no such restriction, so States were free to levy.
- States’ power to tax land (Entry 49) extends to mines/quarries and can be based on mineral value or produce.
- This judgment opened the door for States to impose fresh cesses/taxes on mineral-bearing land, some going up to 20%, creating fiscal unpredictability for miners.
Key Provisions of the 2026 Amendment
- Restricts new State taxes: States cannot impose new taxes on mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands without conditions/restrictions prescribed by the Centre — directly responding to the MADA judgment’s opening.
- Regulation of mineral-bearing lands: Central government empowered to regulate not just mines and mineral development, but “mineral-bearing land” itself (newly defined).
- Aims to reduce the “policy patchwork” — mining currently attracts ~14 different taxes/fees (royalty, auction premium, District Mineral Foundation (DMF) contribution, GST, cess, etc.), and additional State levies create wide inter-state cost variation.
- Seeks to make extraction of strategic and critical minerals (graphite, uranium, rare earths, lithium) commercially viable by capping fiscal unpredictability — relevant to India’s critical minerals security push (linked to the National Critical Mineral Mission, NMET/NMEDT).
- Provisions strengthening mine closure, ecological restoration, and rehabilitation are proposed to be enforceable across the mining lifecycle, not just at closure.
- Anti-illegal mining measures: satellite monitoring, drone surveillance, GPS-based mineral tracking, e-permits.
The Core Tension: Fiscal Federalism vs. Fiscal Certainty
- Pro-Centre argument: Uniform taxation removes investor uncertainty, supports the “Make in India”/critical minerals agenda, and prevents a “race to the bottom or top” in mineral costs across States that discourages exploration.
- Pro-State argument: This dilutes States’ constitutionally recognised (and Supreme-Court-affirmed) taxation autonomy over natural resources located within their territory — reviving the classic Centre-State fiscal federalism debate, akin to disputes over GST compensation and royalty-sharing.
- Context: Nearly 90% of mining-sector revenue already accrues to States (State coal revenue rose from ₹11,947.97 crore in 2014-15 to ₹32,183.09 crore in 2025-26); auction premiums have created an additional revenue stream for them.
Prelims Pointers
- MMDR Act — original year: 1957
- Entries relevant: Union List Entry 54; State List Entries 23, 49, 50
- Key SC case: Mineral Area Development Authority vs. Steel Authority of India (2024) — 9-judge bench
- Bodies to know: District Mineral Foundation (DMF), National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET), National Critical Mineral Mission (NCMM)
- MMDR Amendment Bill, 2026 introduced in Lok Sabha: 10 August 2026
Mains Angle (GS-II Polity/Federalism, GS-III Economy/Infrastructure)
Possible question: “The MMDR Amendment Act, 2026 attempts to balance fiscal uniformity in mining with the constitutional principle of fiscal federalism. Critically examine.” (15 marks)
Structure for answer:
- Intro: Context of MADA judgment and resultant unpredictability
- Body: Arguments for uniformity (investment, critical minerals, ease of doing business) vs. federalism concerns (State autonomy, revenue loss, cooperative federalism principle)
- Way forward: GST-Council-like consultative mechanism for mineral taxation; ring-fencing DMF/welfare funds; transparent revenue-sharing formula
- Conclusion: Balance needed between national resource security and States’ fiscal rights
2. PM-AASHA (Pradhan Mantri Annadata Aay SanraksHan Abhiyan)
Ministry: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare | Launched: September 2018 | Latest Cabinet approval: Continuation through the 15th Finance Commission cycle (up to 2025-26); ₹7,200 crore proposed for 2026-27
Why in News
The Government approved continuation of the integrated PM-AASHA Scheme, with a total financial outgo of ₹35,000 crore over the 15th Finance Commission cycle (up to 2025-26), and an allocation of ₹7,200 crore for 2026-27 to strengthen procurement mechanisms.
What is PM-AASHA?
An umbrella scheme for Minimum Support Price (MSP) assurance to farmers, merging multiple pre-existing schemes to give “more effectiveness” to procurement — dual objective of (a) remunerative prices for farmers and (b) price stability for consumers.
Components
| Component | Function |
|---|---|
| Price Support Scheme (PSS) | Physical procurement of notified pulses, oilseeds, and copra at MSP by Central Nodal Agencies (CNAs) directly from pre-registered farmers, via State-level agencies, when market price falls below MSP |
| Price Deficiency Payment Scheme (PDPS) | Farmers sell at market price; government pays the difference between MSP and the actual selling price directly into farmers’ accounts (no physical procurement) |
| Price Stabilisation Fund (PSF) merged in | Controls price volatility of essential commodities for consumers (buffer stocking, market intervention) |
| Market Intervention Scheme (MIS) | For perishables/horticultural crops not covered under MSP |
| Private Procurement and Stockist Scheme (PPSS) (pilot) | Private players procure oilseeds at MSP on government’s behalf |
- States/UTs choose either PSS or PDPS (not both) per crop, per season.
- Only pulses and copra are procured under PSS; oilseeds may go under PSS or PDPS depending on State choice.
Key Numbers
- Total outlay: ₹35,000 crore (15th FC cycle, up to 2025-26); ₹7,200 crore earmarked for 2026-27.
- Government guarantee for procurement of pulses, oilseeds and copra at MSP: enhanced to ₹45,000 crore.
- From 2024-25 season, procurement of notified pulses/oilseeds/copra under PSS capped at 25% of national production — except Tur, Urad, and Masur, where 100% procurement applies to incentivise import substitution in pulses.
- Historical comparison: total procurement was ~₹3,500 crore (2010-14) → ~₹34,000 crore (2014-18), a roughly 10x jump.
Significance
- Directly tackles agrarian distress and distress sale by farmers.
- Reduces import dependence on pulses (India remains a large pulses importer) — the 100% Tur/Urad/Masur procurement is a deliberate self-sufficiency push.
- Technology push: Aadhaar-linked farmer registration and e-procurement portals to improve transparency, reduce middlemen leakages, and speed up payments.
Prelims Pointers
- PM-AASHA launched: September 2018 (announced in Union Budget 2018)
- Components: PSS, PDPS, PSF (merged), MIS, PPSS (pilot)
- Government guarantee: ₹45,000 crore
- 100% procurement guarantee crops: Tur, Urad, Masur
- Nodal agencies: Central Nodal Agencies (CNAs), e.g., NAFED, NCCF
Mains Angle (GS-III Agriculture, Farmer Welfare)
Possible question: “Discuss the rationale behind merging the Price Support Scheme and Price Stabilisation Fund under PM-AASHA. Does an MSP-based procurement architecture adequately address the structural problems of Indian agriculture?” (15 marks)
Key arguments:
- Merits: price assurance reduces risk, reduces distress sales, supports pulses/oilseeds self-sufficiency (reduces India’s edible oil and pulses import bill).
- Limitations: MSP benefits concentrated in a few states/crops (wheat, rice); pulses/oilseeds procurement infrastructure weaker than foodgrain; PDPS depends on accurate market price data and can be gamed; leakages and delayed payments persist; doesn’t address the deeper issue of low productivity and fragmented landholding.
- Way forward: Decentralised procurement, e-NAM integration, direct benefit transfer strengthening, crop diversification incentives (from water-guzzling paddy/wheat to pulses/oilseeds/millets).
3. Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP)
Ministry: Ministry of Jal Shakti | States: Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh | Approved cost: ₹44,605 crore (Dec 2021) | Foundation laid: 25 December 2024, Khajuraho | Target completion: 2029-30
Why in News
Construction of the Daudhan Dam (the project’s central structure) is actively progressing in Chhatarpur/Panna districts of Madhya Pradesh through 2026, even as displacement and rehabilitation controversies, and pending NGT cases on environmental/wildlife clearances, keep the project in the news. A political controversy has also emerged over the actual number of people displaced.
What is KBLP?
- India’s first river-interlinking project, under the National Perspective Plan (NPP) for interlinking of rivers (conceived in the 1980s).
- Transfers surplus water from the Ken River (Madhya Pradesh) to the water-deficit Betwa River basin (Uttar Pradesh) — both are tributaries of the Yamuna.
- Aims to irrigate the chronically drought-prone Bundelkhand region spanning MP and UP.
Timeline
| Year | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005 | MP–UP tripartite MoU for Detailed Project Report (DPR) |
| 2008 | Declared a National Project |
| 2021 | MoU signed between Ministry of Jal Shakti, MP and UP for implementation |
| Dec 2021 | Union Cabinet approves KBLP at ₹44,605 crore |
| Dec 2024 | PM Modi lays foundation stone at Khajuraho |
| 2025-26 | Civil construction of Daudhan Dam begins/progresses |
| 2029-30 | Targeted completion |
Components (Phase I)
- Daudhan Dam (96.7 m high, in Panna and Chhatarpur) — the flagship structure.
- Low-Level Tunnel and High-Level Tunnel
- Ken-Betwa Link Canal (~221 km)
- Lower Orr Project (216.465 km link canal)
- Kotha Barrage
- Bina Complex Multipurpose Project
- Power houses for hydropower generation
Financing
- 90% of cost borne by the Centre (~₹39,317 crore, as grant + loan).
- 10% jointly by MP and UP governments.
- Implementing body: Ken-Betwa Link Project Authority (KBLPA), a special authority constituted by the Centre.
Environmental and Social Concerns
- Clearances obtained: Environmental Clearance (2017), Wildlife Clearance (2016), Ministry of Tribal Affairs Clearance (2017), Forest Clearance (2023) — all subject to conditions.
- Panna Tiger Reserve (PTR) is directly affected — significant forest/wildlife habitat submergence is the central environmental controversy. A Greater Panna Landscape Management Plan (prepared by the Wildlife Institute of India) and an EMP are being implemented as mitigation.
- Displacement: Government figures put affected population around 23,000 across 22 villages in Panna and Chhatarpur; political claims allege closer to 50,000. Awards of ~₹629.87 crore sanctioned for 5,039 affected families (₹604.75 crore, ~96%, already disbursed). Special rehabilitation package: ₹12.5 lakh per family.
- NGT cases on wildlife/forest clearance validity remain pending — a 2019 Central Empowered Committee report had earlier flagged the wildlife clearance process as flawed under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
- Compensatory afforestation: Land transfer (~5,480 ha non-forest government land) arranged for compensatory afforestation to Panna Tiger Reserve.
Prelims Pointers
- KBLP = first project under National Perspective Plan for river interlinking
- Ken and Betwa are both tributaries of the Yamuna
- Approved cost: ₹44,605 crore (Dec 2021 Cabinet approval)
- Central funding share: 90%
- Implementing authority: Ken-Betwa Link Project Authority (KBLPA)
- Affected protected area: Panna Tiger Reserve
- Target completion: 2029-30
Mains Angle (GS-I Geography/GS-III Water Resources & Environment)
Possible question: “River interlinking projects like the Ken-Betwa Link promise water security but raise serious ecological and social costs. Discuss with reference to KBLP.” (15 marks)
Structure:
- Benefits: irrigation to drought-prone Bundelkhand, drinking water, hydropower, flood moderation, employment.
- Costs: submergence of critical tiger habitat (Panna), large-scale displacement, hydrological uncertainty over actual “surplus” water in donor basin, inter-generational rehabilitation challenges.
- Broader debate: Does India need a National Perspective Plan-style interlinking approach at all, versus decentralized water management, watershed development, and demand-side management?
- Conclusion: Need for time-bound, transparent R&R; independent environmental audit; treat as a template/test case for future interlinking projects (Godavari-Cauvery, Damanganga-Pinjal, etc.)
4. National Animal Disease Control Programme (NADCP)
Ministry: Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD) | Launched: September 2019 | Now merged into: Livestock Health and Disease Control Programme (LHDCP), FY 2026-27 outlay ₹2,010 crore
Why in News
PIB released a Backgrounder (around 22-24 August 2026) highlighting NADCP’s decade-long role in reducing Foot & Mouth Disease (FMD) and Brucellosis through nationwide vaccination, digital livestock registration (Bharat Pashudhan Portal), and a “One Health” approach to animal-human-environment health security.
Background
- India has one of the world’s largest livestock populations: 535.78 million livestock (20th Livestock Census, 2019), including 302.79 million bovines.
- FMD (Foot and Mouth Disease): highly contagious viral vesicular disease of cloven-hoofed animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, pigs) — reduces milk yield, growth rate, fertility, and working capacity in bullocks; causes trade embargoes in international markets. Not usually fatal in adults but economically devastating.
- Brucellosis: bacterial disease (Brucella abortus) causing infertility/abortion in cattle/buffaloes; also a zoonotic disease (transmissible to humans), making it relevant to “One Health.”
Programme Design
- Launched September 2019, 100% centrally funded, original outlay ₹13,343 crore for 2019-20 to 2023-24 (some sources cite ₹12,652 crore for an earlier phase).
- Targets:
- 100% vaccination of cattle, buffalo, sheep, goat, and pig population against FMD (twice a year).
- 100% vaccination of female bovine calves aged 4-8 months against Brucellosis (once in their lifetime).
- Goals: Control FMD and Brucellosis by 2025; eventual eradication by 2030.
Achievements (as per Aug 2026 Backgrounder)
- 147.16 crore FMD vaccine doses administered, benefiting 8.04 crore farmers.
- FMD outbreaks declined from 132 (2019) to 40 (2025).
- Brucellosis outbreaks declined from 22 (2019) to 15 (2025).
- Bharat Pashudhan Portal: over 39 crore livestock registered (as of July 2026) — enables real-time monitoring, traceability, and data-driven planning; supports the National Digital Livestock Mission (NDLM).
- 4,019 Mobile Veterinary Units (MVUs) providing doorstep services.
- 39,810 MAITRIs (Multi-Purpose Artificial Insemination Technicians in Rural India) trained for last-mile veterinary outreach.
Institutional Evolution — LHDCP
- NADCP has now been subsumed, along with the Livestock Health and Disease Control (LH&DC) component and the Pashu Aushadhi initiative, into a single umbrella scheme: Livestock Health and Disease Control Programme (LHDCP).
- LHDCP outlay for FY 2026-27: ₹2,010 crore.
- Pandemic Fund Project (2024): “Animal Health Security Strengthening in India for Pandemic Preparedness and Response” — links animal disease control to global pandemic preparedness architecture.
One Health Approach
- Recognises the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health — critical given that a majority of emerging infectious diseases (including pandemics) are zoonotic in origin.
- NADCP/LHDCP thus feeds into India’s broader zoonotic disease surveillance and antimicrobial stewardship framework.
Prelims Pointers
- NADCP launched: September 2019
- Diseases targeted: FMD and Brucellosis
- Brucellosis vaccination target group: female bovine calves, 4-8 months, once in lifetime
- FMD vaccination frequency: twice a year
- Eradication target year: 2030
- Umbrella scheme (2026): Livestock Health and Disease Control Programme (LHDCP)
- Digital platform: Bharat Pashudhan Portal; mission: National Digital Livestock Mission (NDLM)
- Outreach personnel: MAITRIs
Mains Angle (GS-III Agriculture/Animal Husbandry, GS-II Health Governance)
Possible question: “Animal disease control is integral not just to farmer livelihoods but to India’s pandemic preparedness. Discuss with reference to NADCP/LHDCP and the One Health approach.” (10-15 marks)
Key points:
- Economic angle: FMD/Brucellosis reduce milk yield and fertility → hits dairy farmer incomes (relevant to White Revolution 2.0 and doubling farmer income goals) and India’s meat/dairy export competitiveness (trade embargoes due to disease status).
- Public health angle: Brucellosis is zoonotic; One Health integration is essential post-COVID given zoonotic spillover risks.
- Governance angle: merger of schemes into LHDCP reflects a shift toward integrated, less fragmented centrally sponsored scheme architecture — link to wider CSS rationalisation trend.
- Digital governance: Bharat Pashudhan Portal as an example of DPI (Digital Public Infrastructure) applied to agriculture/animal husbandry, similar to UPI’s DPI story (natural link to Topic 5 below).
5. UPI: Transforming India’s Payment Landscape
Regulator/Developer: National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), under RBI oversight | Piloted: April 2016 | Public launch: August 2016 | 10th Anniversary: 25 August 2026
Why in News
The Unified Payments Interface (UPI) completed 10 years on 25 August 2026. PIB’s backgrounder traces its journey from a domestic pilot with 21 banks to handling nearly half the world’s real-time payment transactions.
Background: Why UPI Was Needed
- Pre-2016, India’s retail payments were fragmented: NEFT was batch-based (not real-time), IMPS required a cumbersome MMID, and cash dominated low-value commerce.
- NPCI, set up in 2009 as an umbrella organisation for retail payments under RBI’s oversight, built UPI on top of the existing IMPS infrastructure to unify these channels onto one interoperable rail.
- UPI piloted in April 2016 with 21 member banks; publicly rolled out in August 2016; the BHIM app followed in December 2016.
How UPI Works
- Links multiple bank accounts in a single mobile app.
- Real-time fund transfer using a Virtual Payment Address (VPA) (e.g., name@bank) instead of account number/IFSC.
- Merchant payments via QR codes, available 24×7, 365 days.
- Security: two-factor authentication (device binding + UPI PIN) and end-to-end encryption.
- Interoperability: any participating bank’s or app’s customer can transact with any other — no closed-loop wallet silos; an open API model lets third-party apps (PhonePe, Google Pay, Paytm, etc.) plug into the same rails.
The Numbers (10-Year Journey)
| Metric | FY 2016-17 | FY 2025-26 / Latest |
|---|---|---|
| Annual transaction volume | 1.78 crore | 24,162 crore (~13,500x growth) |
| Annual transaction value | ₹0.07 lakh crore | ~₹314 lakh crore (~4,000x growth) |
| Banks live on UPI | 44 | 741 (July 2026) |
| Monthly peak (July 2026) | — | 2,366 crore transactions; ₹29.87 lakh crore value |
| Users / merchants | — | 491 million individuals; 65 million merchants (2025 data) |
| Share of India’s digital transactions | — | ~85% (2025) / ~70% (FY23-24, other estimate) |
| Global real-time payments share | — | ~49% (IMF, June 2025) |
- IMF’s note “Growing Retail Digital Payments: The Value of Interoperability” cites India as the global leader in fast payments, crediting UPI’s interoperability design.
- Transaction composition: 86% of Person-to-Merchant (P2M) transactions are below ₹500 (small-ticket daily commerce), while 41% of Person-to-Person (P2P) transactions exceed ₹500 — showing UPI’s “dual character” as both a mass retail micro-payments platform and a trusted high-value transfer channel.
Global Expansion (Digital Public Infrastructure Diplomacy)
- As of August 2026, UPI is live in 11 countries for merchant acceptance and/or cross-border remittances: UAE, France, Bhutan, Nepal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Qatar, Cambodia, Greece, and the Maldives.
- June 2026: NPCI International Payments Ltd. partnered with ACLEDA Bank to launch UPI acceptance in Cambodia.
- June 2026: UPI–Greece cross-border remittance corridor launched via Eurobank.
- 30 July 2026: UPI linked with the Maldives’ Faava (Favara) instant payment system for cross-border remittances.
- This positions UPI as a flagship export of India’s Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) model — alongside Aadhaar and CoWIN — reinforcing India’s G20 DPI advocacy.
Significance
- Financial inclusion: brought unbanked/underbanked and rural populations into formal digital finance.
- Formalisation of economy: reduced cash dependency, widened the tax net indirectly through traceable transactions.
- MSME/street vendor empowerment: near-zero-cost, real-time settlement for small merchants (linked to schemes like PM SVANidhi).
- Global benchmark for public digital infrastructure — UPI is studied internationally as a model for state-led, interoperable, low-cost payment rails (contrasted with proprietary/private-led systems elsewhere).
Prelims Pointers
- UPI developed by: NPCI (set up 2009)
- Pilot: April 2016 (21 banks); Public launch: August 2016
- BHIM app launched: December 2016
- Built atop: IMPS infrastructure
- 10th anniversary: 25 August 2026
- IMF note: “Growing Retail Digital Payments: The Value of Interoperability”
- Countries with UPI presence (2026): 11 — UAE, France, Bhutan, Nepal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Qatar, Cambodia, Greece, Maldives
- Global real-time payments share: ~49% (IMF, 2025)
Mains Angle (GS-III Indian Economy, Digital Infrastructure, Financial Inclusion)
Possible question: “UPI is more than a payment system — it is India’s flagship Digital Public Infrastructure export. Discuss its domestic transformative impact and its role in India’s global digital diplomacy.” (15 marks)
Structure:
- Domestic impact: financial inclusion, formalisation, MSME support, reduced cost of transactions, data-driven credit scoring potential (account aggregator ecosystem).
- Global impact: DPI diplomacy, cross-border remittance corridors reducing remittance costs for the Indian diaspora, soft power/tech leadership narrative.
- Challenges: cybersecurity/fraud risks, digital literacy divide, MDR (Merchant Discount Rate) zero-pricing sustainability for banks/NPCI, over-reliance on two-three private apps (PhonePe/GPay) despite public infrastructure — a market concentration concern (NPCI’s 30% market share cap rule on TPAPs).
- Way forward: Deepening UPI Lite/UPI 123Pay for offline and feature-phone access; expanding global corridors; strengthening fraud detection via AI.
6. India’s Makhana Sector: Traditional Crop to Global Superfood
Ministry: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare | PIB Backgrounder date: 19 August 2026 | Central Sector Scheme outlay: ₹476.03 crore (2025-26 to 2030-31)
Why in News
PIB released a Backgrounder titled “Makhana: India’s Superfood Sector on the Rise” (19 August 2026), documenting India’s dominance in global makhana production and the government’s scheme-based push to modernise the sector.
What is Makhana?
- Scientific name: Euryale ferox.
- An aquatic crop grown in shallow ponds, lakes, and wetlands.
- The edible part is the seed, which after roasting/popping is consumed as “fox nut” — a low-fat, high-protein, clean-label snack, fitting the global “better-for-you snacking” trend (global health snack market growing ~8-10% CAGR).
India’s Dominance
- India is the world’s largest producer of makhana.
- Bihar contributes nearly three-fourths (75%) of India’s makhana production and 80-85% of global supply.
- Core production belt: Kosi basin districts — Supaul, Saharsa, Madhepura — plus the wider Mithila and Seemanchal regions; other major producing districts include Madhubani, Darbhanga, Sitamarhi, Katihar, Purnea, Kishanganj, and Araria (nine districts account for the bulk of national output).
- Other producing states: West Bengal, Assam.
Market Size & Trends
- Annual production: >0.6 lakh metric tonnes.
- Exports: ~40% (0.23-0.25 lakh MT); remainder consumed domestically.
- Domestic market growth: 17-18% CAGR (2021-22 to 2024-25), driven by health awareness, premiumisation, and branded players.
- Market size projected to reach ₹11,000-12,000 crore by 2029-30.
- Price trend: average price rose from ~₹500/kg (2020-22) to ~₹1,250/kg (2025) — reflecting a demand-supply mismatch, since production grew only 4-5% over FY2022-25 while prices roughly 2.5x’d.
Government Support Architecture
- National Makhana Board
- Announced in Union Budget 2025-26.
- Formally launched in Bihar on 15 September 2025.
- Modelled on commodity boards like the Coffee Board, Spices Board, Tea Board — mandate covers research, quality standards, export promotion, market development.
- Central Sector Scheme for the Development of Makhana
- Total outlay: ₹476.03 crore for 2025-26 to 2030-31 (six years).
- Allocation: ₹30 crore (2025-26) → ₹90 crore (2026-27) (a 3x jump, signalling scale-up).
- Focus areas: research & innovation, quality seed availability, farmer skilling, harvesting/post-harvest upgradation, value addition, branding & marketing, export promotion, quality control.
- On-ground progress: 1,010 additional hectares brought under cultivation; 73 hectares under a seed production programme; 89 Front Line Demonstrations (FLDs) conducted; 8,159 farmers benefited in 2025-26.
Why It Matters
- Farmer income diversification: makhana cultivation, traditionally a subsistence activity in flood-prone North Bihar wetlands, is being converted into a high-value commercial crop, aligned with the goal of doubling farmers’ income.
- GI tag linkage: “Mithila Makhana” already holds a Geographical Indication (GI) tag (2022) — the scheme builds on this branding foundation to capture greater value in export markets.
- Value chain upgrade: shift from raw/unprocessed sale to graded, branded, packaged products lets farmers/processors capture a larger share of the final consumer price (echoes broader food-processing policy goals, e.g., PMFME, PM Kisan Sampada Yojana).
- Nutraceutical/superfood positioning: aligns with global demand for plant-based, gluten-free, high-protein clean-label snacks — an export opportunity in health-conscious Western and East Asian markets.
Prelims Pointers
- Scientific name: Euryale ferox
- Largest producer state: Bihar (~75% of national output, 80-85% of global supply)
- Core districts: Supaul, Saharsa, Madhepura (Kosi basin)
- National Makhana Board: announced Budget 2025-26, launched 15 September 2025, in Bihar
- Central Sector Scheme outlay: ₹476.03 crore (2025-26 to 2030-31)
- GI tag: “Mithila Makhana” (2022)
- Projected market size: ₹11,000-12,000 crore by 2029-30
Mains Angle (GS-III Agriculture, Value Addition, Farmer Income)
Possible question: “Critically examine the role of GI tags, commodity boards, and value-chain development in enhancing farmer incomes and export competitiveness, using the makhana sector as a case study.” (15 marks)
Structure:
- Intro: Makhana’s transformation from a subsistence wetland crop to a globally traded superfood.
- Body:
- Role of GI tag in premium branding/anti-counterfeiting (Mithila Makhana).
- Role of commodity board (National Makhana Board) in R&D, standardisation, and coordinated export push — compare with Spices Board/Tea Board success stories.
- Value chain gaps: processing/grading infrastructure, cold-chain and packaging deficits, price volatility hurting smallholders despite rising consumer prices (price increased 2.5x while production grew only 4-5% — signals middlemen capturing gains).
- Role of FPOs and startups in bridging farm-to-retail value capture.
- Way forward: scaling FPO-led aggregation, geographic diversification beyond Bihar to de-risk supply, investment in mechanised processing to reduce labour-intensive traditional roasting/popping, branding India’s makhana globally akin to Basmati rice.
- Conclusion: A template for how traditional/regional crops can be turned into globally competitive superfoods through combined GI + institutional + fiscal support.