You believe India can be a $1 trillion agriculture sector if it mirrors China’s investment model. What are the top three "policy thorns" the government must remove to attract pesticide companies? 

India can emerge as a $1 trillion agriculture economy and a global agrochemical hub only if it removes three key policy bottlenecks: Introducing robust data protection and exclusivity regime to safeguard proprietary molecules and build investor confidence; Reducing cost of manufacturing through subsidized power, low-interest financing, and ready-to-use chemical clusters to compete with Vietnam and Indonesia; and Rolling out a targeted PLI scheme for agrochemicals to incentivize domestic production of technicals and intermediates—without these structural corrections, the China+1 opportunity will continue to bypass India.

You have frequently criticized 18% GST on pesticides as a "luxury tax" on an essential input. What is your specific proposal regarding GST rationalization? 

Current 18 per cent GST on pesticides is inconsistent with India’s broader farm-support framework—where fertilizers are taxed at 5 per cent, seeds are exempted, and over Rs. 2 lakh crore is spent annually on fertilizer subsidy—despite pesticides functioning as risk-mitigating “crop insurance” inputs. 

Our proposal to the Ministry of Finance is to rationalize GST on crop protection products to 5 per cent, bringing parity with other essential agri-inputs. This would directly reduce the end-consumer price by around 10-12 per cent, making quality products more accessible to smallholder farmers, improving pest management outcomes, and ultimately supporting higher yields and farm incomes while also discouraging the use of spurious or substandard products.

With rising input costs, what policy shifts are needed to balance duty on imported technical-grade chemicals versus supporting "Make in India" initiative for domestic manufacturing? 

With rising input costs, India needs a calibrated, dual-track duty policy that supports farmers and strengthens domestic manufacturing. Since a large portion of technicals depend on intermediates imported (largely from China), high duties across the board inflate costs and ultimately hurt farmers. 

The government should therefore maintain low or zero duty on critical intermediates to ensure cost competitiveness, while applying moderate, strategic duties on finished technical-grade imports to encourage local manufacturing under “Make in India”. 

This must be complemented by incentives for domestic production (PLI, infrastructure, and cheaper credit) so that Indian companies can become globally competitive rather than subsidy-dependent—aligning with the Prime Minister’s vision of moving from subsidies to competitiveness.

India registers far fewer pesticide products compared to China due to restrictive rules. What specific data protection laws should government adopt to encourage global innovators to bring latest molecules to India?

India must adopt a clear, TRIPS-aligned data protection (data exclusivity) regime to attract global innovators—specifically, granting minimum 5 years of data exclusivity for new molecules (extendable to 10 years, as seen in markets like the EU). This should be backed by strong enforcement against data piracy, fast-track and time-bound registration approvals, and recognition of global studies (OECD/FAO standards) to avoid duplication. 

Currently, India has around 340 registered pesticides versus around 1,200 globally, leaving farmers with outdated molecules where resistance is already widespread; a robust data protection framework would incentivize companies to introduce latest, safer, and more effective chemistries, expanding farmer choice and improving productivity.

Given your call for stringent action against substandard and smuggled agrochemicals, what legislative gaps currently prevent effective shutdown of grey market?

The challenge is less about gaps in legislation and more about ineffective enforcement and selective application of existing laws while the Insecticides Act and Rules (including Rules 27 & 28) clearly mandate regular sampling and oversight, these are often not implemented uniformly, allowing grey-market operators to function unchecked. 

Additionally, smuggling through misdeclaration—as seen in a recent Gujarat case involving a large syndicate and smuggling pesticides worth Rs. 400 crore—highlights serious gaps in customs enforcement and inter-agency coordination. Such cases are often pursued under limited provisions like trademark or patent violations, instead of invoking stricter laws under the Insecticides Act, Customs Act, and criminal statutes. 

The real gap, therefore, lies in lack of deterrent penalties, weak accountability mechanisms, and poor coordination between regulators and enforcement agencies, enabling the grey market to persist despite an otherwise adequate legal framework.

Industry has contributed to the finalization of Integrated Pesticide Management System (IPMS). In your view, why is the immediate launch of this system critical for transparency and what is the main bottleneck in its implementation?

The immediate launch of IPMS is critical to bring end-to-end transparency, traceability, and accountability in the agrochemical value chain—right from manufacturing to retail—thereby curbing spurious products and eliminating discretionary enforcement. 

The industry, through CII with significant investment and support from Tech Mahindra, had already developed a robust system; however, the key bottleneck has been lack of timely government adoption, limited availability of officials during rollout, and absence of alignment between the developed system and the current government IT approach, which has not been adequately shared with industry stakeholders. 

Going forward, IPMS must incorporate blockchain-based traceability, system-driven random sampling (instead of inspector discretion), coded samples, and mandatory NABL-accredited lab testing, similar to FSSAI norms—only then can it ensure transparency, reduce misuse of power, and build trust across the ecosystem. 

India spends roughly 0.7% of GDP on R&D, far below China or the US. Beyond direct funding, what tax-linked incentives or income-tax deductions would you like to see restored to boost private sector research?

India must urgently restore weighted tax deductions of 200 per cent on R&D expenditure under the Income Tax Act, which earlier acted as a strong catalyst for private sector innovation but has now been withdrawn. 

Beyond this, the government should provide clear, sector-specific access to the proposed Rs. 1 lakh crore R&D fund, ensuring agrochemical research is explicitly included. At present, all new pesticide innovations originate from global MNCs, with no indigenous discovery. To change this, India should incentivize collaborative research between industry and premier institutions like CSIR, ICT, and IITs, along with tax credits for field trials, farmer training, and commercialization efforts. 

A stable, incentive-driven tax regime will be far more effective than subsidies in building a globally competitive, innovation-led agrochemical sector.

Dhanuka has invested in agri-drone technology. What policy or subsidy changes are required at the state level to make drone-based spraying a standard practice for an average Indian farmer?

To make drone-based spraying a mainstream practice, the focus must shift from just capital subsidy to ecosystem development at the state level while subsidies for drone purchase and schemes like Drone Didi exist, many beneficiaries lack commercial viability. 

The government should prioritize farmer awareness, training, and demonstration programs to highlight key benefits such as uniform spraying, reduced pesticide usage, lower water consumption, and improved safety. Instead of only subsidizing ownership, states should promote service-based models (Drone-as-a-Service) with viability gap funding for operators, standardized pricing, and assured demand through FPOs and cooperatives. 

Additionally, skill development for rural youth as certified drone operators and streamlined approvals will be critical to ensure scalability and long-term sustainability.

You’ve noted that global companies are leaving China but shifting to Vietnam and Indonesia instead of India due to our "restrictive rules". What specific export-oriented regulatory fast-tracking must the government implement to ensure India captures this shifting global manufacturing base?

To capture the global manufacturing shift, India must implement export-oriented regulatory fast-tracking anchored around strong data protection (data exclusivity) norms. The absence of a clear, enforceable data protection regime discourages global innovators from bringing advanced molecules and setting up manufacturing bases in India. 

The government should introduce time-bound approvals (single-window and predictable timelines), fast-track registration for export-only molecules, and acceptance of globally generated data (OECD/FAO standards) to avoid duplication. Alongside, ensuring regulatory stability and protection of proprietary data will be critical—without this, companies will continue to prefer Vietnam and Indonesia despite India’s scale advantages.

You’ve highlighted a massive disparity—1,200 pesticide products registered globally versus only 330 in India. How does this "thorns instead of petals" approach hamper our ability to export high-value, modern molecules, and what is your specific ask for the Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee (CIB&RC)?

India has only around 340 registered molecules compared to around 1,200 globally—restricts access to modern, export-relevant chemistries, limiting India’s competitiveness in high-value markets and exposing farmers to rising risks from new and exotic pests driven by climate change. This directly hampers our ability to produce and export next-generation molecules aligned with global standards. 

The key ask from CIB&RC is to ensure faster, time-bound, and science-based approvals, particularly through fast-tracking globally accepted molecules and reducing delays in registration, so that Indian industry and farmers can respond effectively to evolving pest challenges while strengthening export potential.

What specific "export-performance-linked" components would you want to see in a dedicated PLI to help companies like Dhanuka to scale their Dahej technical plant for global supply? 

A dedicated PLI for agrochemicals must be designed to bridge India’s export competitiveness gap vis-à-vis China, where exporters benefit from effective support of up to around 10–13 per cent through VAT rebates, compared to India’s limited around 1–3 per cent under RoDTEP, which is merely reimbursement-based and not a true incentive. 

To counter this disparity, the PLI should include export-performance-linked incentives on technical-grade products and key intermediates, with higher benefits for backward integration, scale creation, and global compliance standards. This will enable Indian companies to compete globally and move beyond formulation-led growth. 

Dhanuka has successfully collaborated with Japanese innovators to bring exclusive molecules to India. What policy framework would encourage more JVs where India becomes the global "contract manufacturing hub" for Japanese or European innovators looking to export to Southeast Asia and Africa?

To position India as a global contract manufacturing hub for JVs with Japanese and European innovators, the foremost requirement is a robust and enforceable data protection (data exclusivity) regime, as concerns around data leakage and weak confidentiality enforcement remain a key deterrent. 

The government must ensure strict non-disclosure safeguards within regulatory systems, with legal accountability for breaches, similar to global standards. Additionally, there is a need to rationalize and decriminalize minor technical or procedural variations, as current practices of prolonged litigation and implicating senior management create a perception of regulatory overreach. 

A stable, predictable, and globally aligned regulatory framework, with clear liability boundaries and faster approvals, will significantly enhance investor confidence and encourage long-term JV partnerships, making India a preferred manufacturing base for exports to Southeast Asia and Africa.

As the world moves toward "green chemistry," you've noted the rise of biologicals and biostimulants. How should India’s Agriculture Export Policy be updated to specifically incentivize the export of low-residue and sustainable crop protection solutions? 

India’s Agriculture Export Policy must evolve to explicitly promote low-residue and sustainable solutions like biologicals and biostimulants by creating a dedicated export incentive and certification framework. Products such as Mycore Super from Dhanuka Agritech—an endomycorrhiza-based biofertilizer—have already demonstrated 20–25 per cent yield improvement, highlighting their global potential.  

To scale this, India should replicate successful models like GrapesNet, which ensures end-to-end traceability, strict residue monitoring, and compliance with global standards. A similar system should be extended to biologicals and other agri-exports.

Further, a cluster-based production approach, jointly supervised by government and private experts, along with rigorous pre-export testing and certification, will ensure quality consistency and build global trust—positioning India as a leader in sustainable, low-residue crop protection exports.