Stubble Burning Through the Lens of Government Policy

A recent study analyses the problem of stubble burning from the lens of ‘governmentality’ and market failure.

Why is stubble burning a recurring issue?

• Every year during October and November, parts of North India—especially the Indo-Gangetic Plain—experience a sharp spike in air pollution.
• This is due to a combination of factors like:
  • reduced wind movement
  • cooler temperatures
  • persistent emissions from vehicles and industries
• However, one additional seasonal factor significantly worsens the air quality: “stubble burning”.
• After harvesting the paddy crop, many farmers in Punjab, Haryana, and parts of Uttar Pradesh burn the leftover straw (or “stubble”) in their fields.
• Impact

• Pollution: Stubble burning emits toxic pollutants in the atmosphere containing harmful gases like Carbon Monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC).
• Soil fertility: Soil becomes less fertile and its nutrients are destroyed when the husk is burned on the ground
• Heat penetration: Stubble burning generates heat that penetrates into the soil, causing an increase in erosion, loss of useful microbes and moisture.

• Why farmers still opt for it:
  • Stubble burning quickly clears the land in time for sowing wheat, the next crop in the Rabi season.
  • Burning stubble is fast, cheap, and efficient for farmers with limited time and money—but it's also disastrous for the environment and public health.

What does the new study say?

• A recent study looks at the problem from a different angle. Instead of just blaming individual farmers, they examine how government policies and market structures actually push farmers towards stubble burning.
• They use the concept of "governmentality", developed by French philosopher Michel Foucault, which refers to how governments shape citizen behavior through indirect influence, rather than through direct control.
• In this case, farmers are encouraged—through policy incentives like the Minimum Support Price (MSP)—to grow only rice and wheat.

How the system works against the farmer

• MSP and monoculture: While MSP offers guaranteed prices for these crops, it also discourages crop diversification. Over time, this leads to mono-cropping (growing the same crop repeatedly), which makes managing crop residue more difficult.
• No affordable alternatives: While stubble burning is penalized, farmers are not provided viable, low-cost options like machinery or market incentives to recycle the waste.
• Market dependence and exploitation: Farmers often sell their crops through commission agents (arhatias) who control prices and access to credit. This creates a cycle of dependency and debt.
• Double standards: Farmers feel the government is quick to blame them for pollution but turns a blind eye to industrial sources of pollution. They see this as a bias favoring urban over rural interests.
• Financial stress: With input costs rising and MSP rates remaining stagnant (e.g., wheat MSP rose just 5% in a decade), farmers are under pressure to cut costs—and stubble burning is the cheapest way to clear fields.

What can be done?

• Create a stubble market: There is potential to turn stubble into something useful—like fuel pellets, packaging material, or fodder. Developing this market would make stubble economically valuable rather than a waste product.

• Strengthen the value chain: The government should help build the supply chain for stubble-based products. This includes supporting technologies, storage, processing units, and transportation.
• Incentivize alternatives: Subsidies or support schemes should make stubble-removal equipment like happy seeders and super straw management systems more accessible to small and marginal farmers.
• Market reforms: Farmers need a fair and transparent market system. Improving MSP mechanisms, reducing dependency on middlemen, and providing better price discovery could improve their financial health and decision-making.