From fertiliser shortages and China dependency to women farmers and export failures — experts across sectors respond to Nanasaheb Patil’s warning on India’s economic future.
India at the Crossroads | Bonus Part | Expert Reactions & The Road Ahead
By Vijay Gaikwad | Senior Agricultural Journalist & Policy Analyst
The lecture that Nanasaheb Patil, IAS (Retd.), delivered on April 13, 2026 at Pune Agricultural College did not remain confined to the auditorium where it was delivered. Over the past several weeks, India at the Crossroads — TheNews21’s four-part series based on that lecture — has generated responses from across sectors: fertiliser experts, exporters, exhibition organisers, women farmer representatives, and leaders of the FPO movement. Some called the lecture essential and overdue. Others questioned the practicality of certain reforms. But almost every response carried one underlying concern — India’s structural vulnerabilities are becoming harder to ignore. This concluding part belongs to those voices.
The Fertiliser Crisis — And the Phosphorus Warning
Nilesh Vasekar, Director of Vigour Agritech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., believes India is underestimating one of the biggest long-term threats to agriculture — phosphorus availability. “Potash is available globally. Nitrogen-linked gas is becoming expensive. But the real concern is phosphorus,” he said. “Demand for phosphorus is rising because of EV batteries, while rock phosphate reserves exist only in limited regions globally.”
According to him, countries like Jordan and Tunisia are strategically important for phosphorus, yet India has not built deep enough long-term supply partnerships. China, meanwhile, has already secured investments in key mineral regions, while Indian companies continue to operate without coordinated overseas resource strategies. Vasekar’s concern is not merely geopolitical. It is immediate and commercial. “Fertiliser prices have increased enormously. Farmers are struggling to afford them. Even importers are finding it difficult to sustain operations.” His strongest criticism, however, was directed at India’s subsidy structure.
“Enhanced-efficiency fertilisers — which require lower quantities and improve productivity — are not being promoted properly because policy itself discourages innovation. Farmers have become dependent on subsidies. Unless the FCO system is reformed, subsidies are transferred directly, and Indian companies are encouraged to secure overseas supply arrangements, the situation could become much worse.”
The warning adds another layer to Nanasaheb Patil’s broader argument: India’s agricultural vulnerabilities are no longer only domestic. They are deeply linked to global supply chains.
China’s Presence — From Trade Statistic to Ground Reality
For Atul Marne, Director and Co-convenor of KISAN Forum Pvt. Ltd., China’s growing influence is not an abstract geopolitical discussion. It is visible on exhibition floors and inside India’s farm equipment ecosystem. “Five years ago, Chinese participation was limited to a few small stalls,” he said. “Today their presence has multiplied. In certain agricultural equipment categories, Chinese products dominate almost completely.” Marne points to power tillers, sprayers, drone components, and irrigation equipment as segments where Chinese manufacturers now hold overwhelming influence.
But according to him, the deeper dependency lies elsewhere. “In pesticides and irrigation systems, Chinese companies are often invisible to the customer because they operate through Indian brands. The formulations may appear Indian, but the technical ingredients come from China.” He also highlighted the pricing advantage Chinese firms enjoy through state support. “Their provincial governments subsidise freight, exhibition participation, logistics, and stall costs. They can reduce prices instantly by 20 to 30 percent. For Indian MSMEs, competing against that becomes nearly impossible.”
His conclusion was blunt. “If Chinese imports stopped tomorrow, the cost of farming in India would rise dramatically and supply chains would collapse. We are dependent not only on finished products, but on the raw inputs of modern agriculture itself.”
Women Farmers — The Invisible Backbone
Rasika Fatak, a women farmer representative, shifted the discussion away from economics and towards social reality. “It is true that women perform most of the agricultural labour while land ownership remains largely absent,” she said. “But in many farming households, women’s opinions are respected and implemented. That is one reason farming systems have survived despite enormous stress.”
Her observation on women in agriculture was both emotional and practical. “We rarely hear about women farmers dying by suicide. Across Maharashtra, countless women have taken over farms and households after losing the earning male member of the family.” At the same time, she pointed to institutional barriers that continue to exclude women farmers from formal systems. “Women above 45 often hesitate to access schemes, credit systems, or digital platforms because they were never integrated into those structures. But through self-help groups and initiatives like Paani Foundation’s work, many barriers are slowly breaking.”
Fatak believes the next phase of agricultural reform must specifically recognise women as economic decision-makers. “Women-centric agricultural schemes are urgently required. Women already possess strong skills in processing, grading, and agri-allied activities. What they need is institutional recognition and decision-making authority.”
FPOs — Potential Without Trust
Sanjay Pandhare, Director of MahaFPO Federation, believes India’s Farmer Producer Organisation movement has still not overcome its foundational weakness — trust. “The biggest issue is small landholding,” he said. “Small farms remain economically fragile. Even within FPOs, members often follow different farming practices and quality standards, which makes collective branding difficult.”
According to him, market intelligence and pricing systems remain weak, while farmers entering export chains continue to face exploitation. “When farmers struggle to get fair prices in local markets, competing internationally becomes extremely difficult,” he observed. “Even today, many farmers and FPOs are being cheated in export transactions.”
Pandhare believes incremental reforms are no longer enough. “What Indian agriculture needs now is not cosmetic change, but structural transformation — something similar to the Meiji Restoration in Japan. Farmers must be treated not merely as producers, but as entrepreneurs.”
Exporters — ‘The Government Is Missing’
Pramod Nirmal, a banana exporter from Pandharpur, spoke from direct experience in international markets. “To survive globally, you have to build identity around a specific crop,” he said. “That journey is extremely difficult.” But his sharpest criticism was reserved for institutional support systems. “Exporters increasingly feel that agencies like APEDA create obstacles instead of support. During crises — whether war or logistics disruption — exporters are left to handle losses alone.”
According to him, export incentives have weakened while long-term policy continuity remains absent. “When exports stop, it is not only exporters who suffer. Farmers suffer eventually.”
The Dissent — Which Also Matters
Not every response fully agreed with Nanasaheb Patil’s conclusions. Divyendu Verma, an international expert in intellectual property law, argued that many Indian discussions underestimate the complexity of China’s commercial behaviour. “Nanasaheb does not fully understand the Chinese way of doing business,” he remarked.
That criticism matters because policy discussions cannot become echo chambers. At the same time, the experiences described by Atul Marne from agricultural exhibitions, and by Nilesh Vasekar from fertiliser markets, suggest that India’s dependence on Chinese-linked supply systems extends well beyond theory or trade diplomacy. It is now embedded in day-to-day economic functioning.
Editorial Insight — Five Voices, One Direction
Taken separately, these responses may appear fragmented. Together, they reveal something larger. A fertiliser expert warned about phosphorus shortages. Exhibition organisers describing China’s near-total manufacturing dominance. Women farmers highlighting invisible labour. FPO leaders pointing to structural mistrust. Exporters speaking about institutional absence. Different sectors. Different experiences. Yet the underlying concern remains remarkably similar. India’s vulnerabilities are structural.
Nanasaheb Patil outlined eight reforms in his original lecture. These responses, coming independently from people operating on the ground, reinforce the need for those reforms in different ways. That convergence is significant. Because this debate is no longer confined to economics classrooms, policy seminars, or government reports. It is now visible in markets, farms, supply chains, exhibitions, and export systems and it leads back to the same unresolved question that Nanasaheb Patil left hanging inside the auditorium at Pune Agricultural College:
“India — will you remain vulnerable, or will you become a leader?” The question remains open. But the time available to answer it may be shrinking.
