UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

PM-PRANAM is designed to address the environmental and fiscal costs of excessive fertiliser use. States that successfully reduce consumption relative to a baseline can receive a portion of the resulting subsidy savings as grants. These funds can support balanced nutrient management, including organic and bio-fertilisers and capacity building for farmers. The scheme therefore links environmental outcomes with cooperative fiscal incentives.

Option A:
This option is incorrect because the scheme seeks to moderate fertiliser use, not increase it indiscriminately. Raising subsidies without conditions would worsen nutrient imbalances.

Option B:
This option correctly explains how the scheme rewards states for cutting chemical fertiliser use and reinvesting savings in sustainable alternatives.

Option C:
The scheme does not ban organic manures; it promotes them as part of balanced nutrient strategies. Therefore this option contradicts policy intent.

Option D:
PM-PRANAM is unrelated to crop-residue burning; in fact, sustainable agriculture initiatives generally discourage such burning due to air-pollution impacts.

PM-PRANAM stands for a programme aimed at Restoration, Awareness, Nourishment and Amelioration of Mother Earth. It offers incentives to states that reduce their chemical fertiliser use compared to a past baseline, sharing part of the subsidy savings. The scheme encourages balanced nutrient application, use of organic inputs and improvement of soil health. Recent data show notable reductions in fertiliser consumption in several states during 2023–24, illustrating its early impact. (Drishti IAS)

Option A:
This option correctly reflects the scheme’s objective of cutting excessive chemical fertiliser use while promoting eco-friendly alternatives. It also matches the design of linking financial incentives to states’ performance in reducing fertiliser consumption, making it the accurate answer.

Option B:
Providing universal 100% subsidy on major fertilisers would increase, not decrease, overuse and subsidy burden, contrary to the scheme’s logic. PM-PRANAM aims to save subsidy expenditure by encouraging reduced chemical use.

Option C:
Encouraging farmers to drop organic manure in favour of synthetic fertilisers would worsen soil and environmental problems. The scheme is intended to move in the opposite direction by promoting integrated nutrient management.

Option D:
Promoting fertiliser-intensive cropping in fragile landscapes would heighten risks of pollution and degradation. There is no evidence that PM-PRANAM has such a goal; rather, it supports sustainable alternatives.

PM-PRANAM is designed to address the environmental and fiscal problems arising from excessive chemical fertiliser use. Under the scheme, states that successfully reduce fertiliser consumption below a recent baseline receive a share of the subsidy savings as grants, which can be invested in promoting sustainable practices. The programme encourages a shift towards balanced nutrient management, including organic and bio-fertilisers, with the aim of restoring soil health and lowering pollution. Recent reports show that several states have already reduced fertiliser use and generated notable subsidy savings under this framework. (India Brand Equity Foundation)

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because simply increasing subsidies to boost chemical fertiliser use would worsen nutrient imbalances, harm soil health and increase fiscal burdens. PM-PRANAM, by contrast, seeks to moderate and optimise fertiliser use rather than expand it uncritically. Treating overuse as desirable goes against the scheme’s rationale.

Option B:
Option B is correct as it captures the key design features of PM-PRANAM: rewarding states for lowering chemical fertiliser consumption, sharing subsidy savings, and promoting eco-friendly alternatives. It also highlights the environmental objective of improving soil health, which is central to long-term agricultural sustainability and to the people–environment interface in development.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because the scheme does not aim to ban organic manures; it actually promotes their use alongside bio-fertilisers and other alternatives. Banning organic inputs would contradict the goal of balanced and sustainable nutrient management.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since PM-PRANAM does not encourage expansion of fertiliser-intensive monocultures into fragile areas; that would create new environmental risks. Instead, the scheme is intended to reduce excessive inputs and encourage more sustainable cropping and fertilisation practices.