Explained: Defence budget up, pollution budget down | AI With Sanket

India’s air pollution crisis is being undercut by shrinking budgetary support even as evidence mounts of its economic and public health toll. In an Analytical Intelligence episode, The Federal spoke to Vimlendu Jha, environmentalist and CEO of Green the Map, and Mitali Nikore, chief economist and founder of Nikore Associates, on why the Union Budget 2026’s reduced allocation for pollution control reflects misplaced priorities despite repeated warnings from global and domestic experts.

The discussion followed Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s presentation of the Union Budget 2026–27, which lowered allocations under the “control of pollution” head to ₹1,091 crore—₹209 crore less than the revised estimates of the previous year—at a time when pollution-linked deaths and economic losses continue to rise.

Budget signals and political will

Jha said the clearest indicator of political intent on pollution is resource allocation. He pointed out that despite international scrutiny, including discussions at the World Economic Forum, budgetary support for pollution control has remained consistently low.

He highlighted that the current allocation of about ₹1,000 crore is spread across nearly 80–100 cities, translating into roughly ₹10 crore per city. According to him, this level of funding is inadequate to address a crisis of such scale.

Jha also flagged underutilisation of funds as a serious issue. He cited government data showing that in one financial year only ₹16 crore was spent out of an allocation of ₹900 crore, indicating that pollution control is not treated as an administrative priority.

Health, economy and inequality

Jha said pollution has been normalised in public discourse, often dismissed as seasonal or limited to elite conversations, despite evidence that poorer communities suffer disproportionately.

Also Read: How Madhav Gadgil put people at the heart of Western Ghats’ conservation

He referred to studies cited by economist Gita Gopinath, including World Bank and Lancet findings, which estimate that pollution causes more than 17 lakh deaths annually and costs the Indian economy nearly ₹30 lakh crore each year. He said residents of north India, especially Delhi-NCR, lose 8–10 years of life expectancy due to poor air quality.

According to Jha, the cost of inaction far exceeds the cost of decisive intervention, and continued underinvestment compounds long-term economic losses.

Fragmented spending, missing focus

Responding to the government’s argument that pollution mitigation is funded indirectly through transport, renewable energy and regulatory bodies, Jha said such spending lacks coherence.

He noted modest increases for institutions like the Central Pollution Control Board and the Commission for Air Quality Management, but said these incremental changes do not add up to a comprehensive clean-air strategy.

Jha stressed that the “pollution control” head is not a clean-air budget and includes multiple unrelated components. He said it remains unclear how much of the allocation directly supports air-quality improvement.

Defence priority versus health emergency

Nikore approached the issue from a fiscal perspective, comparing pollution funding with other budget priorities. She noted that defence spending rose by over 15% year-on-year and now accounts for nearly 15% of total Union expenditure, while pollution funding declined.

She argued that budgets are expressions of prioritisation, and the reduction in pollution spending despite its classification as a national health emergency signals a misalignment between risks and resources.

Nikore said air pollution is no longer confined to Delhi-NCR, noting that she observed pollution problems across more than 30 Indian cities during her travels. She said citizens are increasingly resorting to medical interventions such as nebulisers and steroids to cope with polluted air.

Renewable energy and long-term solutions

Nikore said greater investment in renewable energy—particularly solar and wind—would address pollution while also strengthening India’s economic and energy security.

She argued that expanding domestic solar manufacturing through stronger incentives could reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels and foreign supply chains, while delivering long-term public health benefits.

According to her, clean-air investment would also generate economic returns by improving labour productivity, creating green jobs, and catalysing MSMEs and startups in the circular economy.

A national, year-round crisis

Jha rejected the framing of pollution as a winter or Delhi-centric problem, calling it a year-round national crisis. He said nearly 70% of India’s air quality remains in poor to hazardous categories throughout the year.

He also highlighted the lack of adequate pollution monitoring, noting that large parts of India remain outside the measurement network, making policy responses reactive rather than evidence-driven.

Jha said meaningful action requires large-scale, centralised investment, robust monitoring, clear identification of pollution sources, and long-term structural reform—rather than ad-hoc measures like water sprinkling.

The unresolved question

The discussion concluded with a central question: if pollution kills over 17 lakh Indians every year and imposes massive economic costs, is an allocation of ₹1,091 crore an adequate response?

Both panellists argued that without a war-footing approach, pollution will continue to undermine India’s health, productivity and growth, regardless of gains in other sectors.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.