Stubble burning is the widespread practice of setting fire to crop residue, mainly after harvesting rice and wheat, to quickly clear fields for the next sowing. Prevalent in North India, especially Punjab and Haryana, it is driven by the intense pressure of tight cropping cycles, delayed harvests due to water-saving policies, and the lack of affordable alternatives or machinery. For many farmers, especially smallholders, it remains the fastest and most economical option. However, this convenience comes at a steep cost: over 80 million tonnes of residue are burned annually, releasing vast amounts of toxic pollutants like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and PM2.5 into the air. The fallout is severe, evidenced by deteriorating air quality, nutrient-depleted soils, rising health issues, and an estimated economic loss of over $30 billion each year across Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Despite policy measures and growing awareness, stubble burning continues, underscoring the urgent need for scalable, sustainable alternatives and stronger farmer support systems.

Stubble burning has emerged as one of the most complex environmental and socio-economic challenges in northern India. The practice, primarily concentrated in the Indo-Gangetic plains, involves the deliberate setting of fire to crop residues left behind after the mechanical harvesting of paddy and wheat, particularly in the states of Punjab and Haryana. What was once a relatively minor, localised phenomenon has, over the past decades, transformed into a recurrent seasonal hazard. It chokes the air, degrades soils, compromises food systems, and threatens public health. Reports indicate that stubble burning accounts for up to 30–35% of the air pollution in Delhi during the peak burning months of October and November. The crisis, however, is not merely one of environmental mismanagement. It reflects a systemic tangle of economic incentives, technological constraints, policy mismatches, and deep-rooted agrarian anxieties.

At the root of the issue is a narrowing cultivation window between the harvest of paddy and the sowing of wheat. In many regions, this gap spans no more than 15 to 20 days, placing immense pressure on farmers to clear their fields quickly. Traditionally, crop residues were managed through manual labour or repurposed as fodder. However, the widespread use of combine harvesters has altered the residue profile. These machines leave behind stubble that is loose, fibrous, and difficult to manage, particularly in the absence of affordable labour or accessible equipment.

In such a scenario, burning presents farmers with a fast and inexpensive solution. The practice costs only a fraction of what mechanised alternatives like balers or seeders would require. In most districts, the cost of burning per acre is estimated to be between ₹500 and ₹1,000, while residue management machines, when rented, cost over ₹2,500 per acre. Although government schemes have introduced subsidies to bridge this gap, field-level data reveals that actual access remains limited. Even among farmers who have machines in their vicinity, over 60% report rental costs as prohibitive or availability as irregular. In such circumstances, burning becomes the default option, not out of disregard for the environment, but due to the lack of viable alternatives.

Over time, stubble burning has produced devastating environmental consequences. The combustion of residue releases a mix of fine particulate matter and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Estimates suggest that the combustion of one tonne of paddy straw releases 1,460 kg of CO₂, 60 kg of CO, 3 kg of PM, 199 kg of ash, and 2 kg of SO₂. This implies that burning approximately 23 million tonnes of rice residues in Northwest India leads to the emission of nearly 34 million tonnes of CO₂ annually.

As a result, air quality in the region deteriorates dramatically during the burning season. Cities like Delhi record pollution levels that exceed national and international safety thresholds multiple times over. Stubble burning contributes to around 42% of Delhi’s PM2.5 concentration. Ambient PM2.5 levels surge nearly fourfold, reaching concentrations between 193 and 270 µg/m³. This far exceeds the Central Pollution Control Board’s (CPCB) prescribed standard of 60 µg/m³ and the WHO’s recommended limit of 15 µg/m³. These are not abstract statistics. They represent real health risks for millions. The seasonal smog, dense with PM2.5 and other pollutants, has been linked to spikes in asthma, bronchitis, cardiovascular disease, and reduced lung function, particularly among vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly.

The damage, however, is not confined to the air. Fields subjected to repeated burning experience a steady decline in soil health. Stubble burning can lead to the loss of up to 90% of nitrogen and sulphur, and 15 to 20% of phosphorus and potassium in rice fields. The high temperatures during combustion destroy beneficial microbial life, including earthworms and nitrogen-fixing bacteria, while depleting the soil’s organic carbon content. Essential macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are volatilised in the process. As a result, farmers rely increasingly on chemical fertilisers. This shift raises production costs and disrupts the natural nutrient balance of soils, contributing to long-term declines in productivity and water retention.

Farmers, while often framed as contributors to this crisis, are also among its most affected victims. Many now report visible declines in soil quality and crop performance in fields repeatedly subjected to burning. Surveys indicate that nearly 9 out of 10 farmers have experienced negative impacts on yields. This suggests that while the practice offers short-term efficiency, it comes at the cost of long-term agronomic viability. Input costs continue to rise as more fertilizer is needed to sustain output on increasingly fatigued soils. This erodes farm incomes and places additional pressure on already stretched household budgets.

The social costs are equally stark. During peak burning months, hospitals across northern India register a sharp increase, often 30 to 40%, in respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. Field-level health surveys in rural Punjab have recorded a substantial decline in lung function, with female respondents reporting higher vulnerability. Most farming households now associate the burning season with increased medical expenditure, reduced mobility, and a lower quality of life. These costs, though rarely reflected in the formal economy, accumulate over time, diminishing rural resilience and public well-being.

What makes the issue so difficult to resolve is its entrenchment in the economic logic of the current agricultural system. For many farmers, particularly those operating on marginal land or with limited access to credit, burning is not a choice but a necessity. While awareness about the environmental and health risks of the practice is growing, knowledge alone is rarely enough to catalyse behavioural change in the absence of credible alternatives. Even though 94% of surveyed farmers acknowledge a decline in soil health, nearly 25% remain unconvinced of the link between this degradation and stubble burning. This points to a gap not just in communication but in tangible, relatable evidence.

Ultimately, the stubble burning crisis underscores the unintended consequences of a narrowly defined model of agricultural modernisation. It is a symptom of how structural incentives, technological shifts, and fragmented governance can converge to produce chronic environmental harm. Addressing the issue requires more than penalising farmers or promoting machinery. It demands a rethinking of the underlying systems that incentivise such practices in the first place. The urgency is clear. The costs, be it ecological, economic, or human, are mounting. Unless redirected, the current trajectory risks pushing both agricultural sustainability and public health into even greater risk.