The political economy of millets: symbolic narratives and structural realities in India's food system

1 Introduction

Millets became a key focus in 2023 at the intersection of agricultural policy, environmental sustainability, and nutritional governance. As the world's largest producer of millets, India led the United Nations in giving 2023 its designation of International Year of Millets (IYM) and rebranding these grains as “Shree Anna” to help connect them with indigenous nutrition and traditional ecological knowledge [Food and Agriculture Organization and United Nations (FAO and UN), 2023; UN, 2023]. Through the use of numerous policy instruments, including an upward revision of Minimum Support Prices (MSP), selective inclusion of millets in the Public Distribution System, pilot integration of millets into mid-day meal schemes in Karnataka and Odisha [Down To Earth (DTE), 2023], and promotion of a branded export identity for millets [Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare (MoAFW), 2021], the Indian government is attempting to position millets as a solution to the persistent problems of climate vulnerability, farmer distress, micronutrient deficiencies, and trade deficits. This article explores whether there exists a gap between the discursive aspirations of the IYM and the reality of smallholder and tribal millet farmer realities in Indian dryland regions like Bundelkhand, Marathwada, Koraput, and Rayalaseema. This study is based on the theory of “symbolic governance.” Symbolic policies are ways for the state to show that they intend to change the institutions of society, but does so through promising to implement changes and using performance measures, without actually implementing the structural change necessary to foster real change in those institutions (Edelman, 1964; Pingali et al., 2019; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2018). The concept of the political economy of agrarian transitions helps explain the role of policy in legitimizing their actions and processes without requiring any substantive change in the procurement infrastructure, value chain, or patterns of consumption. The spatial representation of millet production and distribution across India is shown in Figure 1. This figure shows the distribution and concentration of millet grown in the major arid agro-ecological areas of India (Verma et al., 2024), using geographical context to indicate millet production and distribution by region.

Table 1 provides an overview of the key inconsistencies within India's narrative surrounding its millet revival. Bajra, which is the most expensively produced millet at the national level, dose not have sufficient amounts of public procurement occurring in either of its three predominant production states, such as Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat. The totality of the millets surveyed saw approximately 10% of their total production bought through public procurement, by contrast to over 33% of total rice production and approximately 40% of total wheat production being procured publicly.

Table 1. Baseline indicators for major millets in India (2022–23).

Each percentage reflects India's individual crop-level share of global production; figures are not additive across crops. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization and United Nations (FAO and UN) (2023); Agmarknet (2023); Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare (MoAFW) (2021); Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD) (2024); MicroSave Consulting (MSC) (2024).

2 Historical and policy context of millets in India

2.1 Millets in India's agricultural history

Millets have been cultivated extensively in India for over four millennia. Evidence of kodo and foxtail millet can be found within the remains of ancient civilizations throughout central and southern India (Fuller, 2006). Rain-fed farming systems contributed significantly to the viability of smallholder and indigenous populations using millets as a major food source and livelihood due to their adaptability to limited areas in central and southern India. On 1st July 1951, coarse cereals were produced on 36 million hectares, surpassing the quantity produced by both rice (34 million hectares) and wheat (12 million hectares) combined [Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (DAC&FW), 2021]. However, the introduction of the Green Revolution in the 1960s created significant changes to this balance by the governmental investment of billions of rupees into developing rice and wheat fields using advanced methods of irrigation, the use of chemical fertilizers, and developing high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat. The area of cultivable land for millets for 2020–21 is estimated at 13.5 million hectares, while the estimations of the area of cultivable land used for growing rice (45 million hectares) and wheat (31 million hectares) combined is 77 million hectares [Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (DAC&FW), 2021].

2.2 Policy marginalization and revival initiatives

Beginning in the 1960s, a formalized procurement system for rice and wheat was created, which focused in Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Public Distribution System (PDS), while providing little or no assistance concerning other cereals or grains such as millets. This has resulted in the FCI having procured over 90 million tons of rice and wheat through 2019–2020, while only the procurement of 0.1 million tons of millets [Food Corporation of India (FCI), 2021]. Several attempts have been made to reverse this trajectory, such as,

• The National Year of Millets (2018) was created by the Government of India and FAO in 2018 as part of a nutrition-sensitive agricultural program;
• The average minimum support price for Ragi and Bajra increased to 6.5% annually. In comparison to other crops with rice and wheat, the MSP has been approximately 4%−5% annually for the period 2018–2022 [Government of India (GOI), 2023].

The volume of millet exports has also climbed from about 1.8 million to around 2.9 million tons subsidy system in place, the millets will remain along the fringe of IYM.

2.3 Long-term comparative trends

Table 2 shows the changing structure of millets over the last 60 years. There has been an increase in area cultivated, total production, and the amount of rice and wheat in each area; this has been put in place by the amount of procurement for these crops being below 5% of their total production being procured in 1960, but growing to 35%−40% by 2020. On the other hand, millets have seen a per capita decline from 32 kg/per person per year in 1960–61 to just 9 kg per year in 2020–21, and procurement as a share of production declined to below 1%.

Table 2. Long-term trends in major cereals in India (1960–2020).

Per capita millet availability of 9 kg/year for 2020–21 is an all-India average, including regions where consumption is negative; availability in millet-consuming dryland states is substantially higher. Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare (MoAFW) (2021); Food Corporation of India (FCI) (2021); ICRISAT (2020); NSSO Consumption Expenditure Surveys (2020).

3 Data

3.1 Study design and scope

This study employs a political economy framework to analyze the implementation gap between millet-related policy commitments and their material outcomes during 2018–2023. This research is a multi-source comparative analysis, in which separate datasets sourced through administrative and survey means are evaluated to five dimensions: the extent to which minimum support prices are realized; the extent to which public distribution systems are integrated into the value chain for millets; the difference between states with respect to fiscal rules and institutional regulations; and the extent to which consumption of millets reflects equitable distribution. A total of six states (Karnataka, Odisha. Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh) will be selected using purposive sampling to provide significant variation along two dimensions—the degree of significance to national production and the extent of institutional involvement. The overall structure of this design will allow for a systematic comparison of both procurement and value chain outcomes based on the functional impact of both institutional capacity and political commitment of the state relative to agro-ecological endowments. Descriptive and comparative analytical techniques are applied, including price-gap analysis, procurement coverage ratios, and fiscal expenditure comparisons across states. Data from different sources are triangulated by cross-referencing the government administrative records (MoCAF&PD procurement data) with independent survey evidence (Agmarknet mandi prices, NSSO consumption surveys) and institutional assessments (NABARD, FICCI-Dalberg). Where discrepancies exist between sources, the more conservative or independently verified figure is reported, and the source of divergence is noted.

3.2 Data sources

The following primary datasets were used: (a) Agricultural and Farmers' Welfare Annual Reports by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare (MoAFW) (2021, 2023), as well as Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD) (2023, 2024, 2021, 2022) regarding Procurement and MSP; (b) mandi-level price from Agmarknet (2023) for all major markets within Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh during the 2022–23 fiscal year; (c) consumption data available through the NNSO Household Consumer Expenditure Surveys at 26th rounds (1971), 68th rounds (2014) and 75th rounds (2019); (d) nutritional composition of food from the ICMR-NIN Indian Food Composition Tables (IFCT 2020) to calculate the nutritional value of food consumed by households; (e) state-level data obtained from the State Finance Accounts (2023) and Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) (2023); (f) value chain and processing data obtained from the FICCI–Dalberg (2023) and NABARD (2023); and references to newspapers are included only for claims not included in other peer-reviewed or government sources, these data sources are summarized in the Table 3.

Table 3. Data sources.

4 Procurement, pricing, and market distortions

In-depth review of the buying and selling outcomes exposes the foundational flaw of India's policies on millets revival: the realities of procurement and pricing current policy endorses do not match what is seen on the ground. The Indian government has upped the minimum support prices (MSPs) for coarse cereals at least twice now, in connection to celebrating the International Year of Millets, as if these prices are framed to provide income security for smallholders and farmers located in dry land (Ministry of Agriculture, 2023). Farmers' real-world market experience demonstrates that the MSP levels are much more symbolic than substantive.

Mandi-level data for the marketing year of 2022–23 shows, quite clearly, that average realized prices fell well below the published MSPs. For example, Table 4 indicates that realized prices generally fell between 250 per quintal for bajra and to a maximum of 746 for ragi, or hovering between 78 and 89% of the stated floor prices for coarse cereals. Jowar was given an MSP of 3,180 per quintal, but was sold at about 2,500; a difference of 680.

Table 4. MSP vs. average market prices for major millets, 2022–23.

Source: Ministry of Agriculture (2023); Agmarknet (2023); MicroSave Consulting (MSC) (2024).

The gap between the MSP and mandi prices is not merely a temporary situation; rather, it highlights an inherent deficiency in procurement in the case of millets. While rice and wheat are procured in large quantities-often counting as a third to two-fifths of the national production-millets are procured in very small quantities. For example, in 2022–23 the Food Corporation of India and the state agencies procured 57 million tons of rice and 34 million tons of wheat, or 43.8 and 32.4% of national production, respectively (see Table 5). Leaving aside the coarse cereals that include all the different millets together, a mere 0.45 million tons of coarse cereals were procured from all the coarse cereals, less than 1% of total production. Within that procurement activity, bajra procurement was only 0.09 million tons out of 10 million tons production and ragi random procurement was only about 2.5% of total production (Food Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2018).

Table 5. Procurement of Food grains in India, 2022–23.

Source: Food Corporation of India, (2023); (Ministry of Agriculture Annual Report 2023).

The significance of these figures is substantial. For farmers of rice and wheat, the MSP is supported by the administrative framework of the Food Corporation of India, state purchasing agencies, and a wide-ranging system of procurement centers. For millet growers, though, MSP remains largely a theoretical standard. Farmers must sell in open markets where demand is low and private sector purchasers are scarce, resulting in earnings significantly below the announced support price.

Without procurement coverage, revenue declines unnecessarily increase the number of farmers who are at a loss. Such losses can be quantified by multiplying the amount of production that occurred for a given crop by the difference between that crop's MSP and the mandis' prices. The total income lost by jowar farmers reached over 3,000 crores in 2022–23, while ragi and bajra farmers also lost approximately 1,500 crores and 2,500 crores, respectively. Overall, the deficits for the above three crops totaled more than 7,000 crores, reflecting the costs of regulatory failure incurred by some of the poorest agricultural families in the country.

The above losses indicate more profound institutional imbalances. India's food subsidy system, costing the government more than 2.8 lakh crore in 2022–23, remains predominantly focused on rice and wheat, with millets receiving a minimal share [Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD), 2023]. In the Public Distribution System, wheat and rice account for more than 95% of all allocations, and millet is distributed in some states, including Odisha and Tamil Nadu (NITI Aayog, 2021), through small pilot schemes. Few children benefit from the incorporation of millets in Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) or mid-day meals, as these options are very rare (less than 5% at the national level) [India Development Review (IDR), 2023]. These structural exclusions allow a cycle of under-promotion to persist, with the practice of under-promotion reinforcing the main contradiction in India's millets strategy: symbolic prominence without meaningful inclusion (ICMR–INDIAB Study, 2023).

This information thus highlights a key contradiction in India's millet strategy: symbolic prominence without meaningful integration. On the one hand, the government is increasing MSPs, hosting global conferences, and launching marketing campaigns. Conversely, procurement activities are lacking, market systems are nascent, and the earnings of farmers are unstable. As a result, smallholder millet farmers, instead of reaping the rewards of the International Year of Millets, still bear the production risks while lacking the protections that rice and wheat producers typically enjoy [Indian Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), 2021].

5 Consumption, nutrition, and market demand

While the supply-side concerns of India's millet plan have been articulated above (in terms of procurement), patterns of consumption speak to the demand-side constraints that have limited their reintegration into mainstream diets. Historical evidence suggests that the consumption of millet in India has decreased rapidly over the last five decades. In the case of coarse cereals, as an illustration, the percentage of cereals consumed per capita from jowar, bajra, and ragi was nearly 36% in the early 1960s for rural households and 23% for urban households [National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), 1971]. These percentages were only recorded at 6.9% consumed in rural households and 3.0% consumed in urban households for the years 2011–12 [National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), 2014]. The causes of this shift in consumption are multi-faceted but essentially consisted of public policies (for example, grain subsidies and allocations of rice and wheat after the Green Revolution), transformation of tastes toward “refined grains,” and perceptions that millets were “foods of the poor” (Pingali et al., 2019).

The most recent data [National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), 2019] reveals that the monthly per capita consumption of millets remained very low with no significant changes. Table 6 reveals that the average monthly per capita jowar consumption levels are only low levels of 0.48 kg for rural areas and 0.16 kg for urban areas, while averages for bajra are 0.75 kg and 0.22 kg, respectively. Ragi performs somewhat better in certain southern states, but national averages are still low.

Table 6. Average monthly per capita consumption of millets in India, 2019.

Source: National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) (2019); Household Consumer Expenditure Survey, 75^TH Round.

The reduction in consumption implicates not only the quantity but also equity. Our disaggregation of data shows that in rainfed areas millet consumption is substantially higher in low-income households, predominantly but not only in Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Scheduled Caste (SC) households [National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), 2014, 2019]. Millets are consumed largely as subsistence staples rather than as a commodity or purchased in the market because of the food culture. In contrast, households of affluent, urban consumers are consuming millets again through overpriced, “nutri-cereal” products promoted by the wellness industry. For instance, products made with millet can be found on supermarket and e-commerce websites that market to affluent health-minded urban consumers for 80–120/kg, while rice and wheat flour costs between 25 and 35/kg (FICCI, 2023). This creates an effective economic barrier for mid- and low-income consumers but promotes consumption for healthy markets of affluent consumers.

However, the nutritional advantages of millets are well documented. Finger millet (ragi) has about 344 mg of calcium per 100 grams, almost 10 times more than rice (35 mg) and three times more calcium than wheat (30 mg) [Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)–National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), 2020]. The same pattern is true of pearl millet (bajra), which provides much more iron (8 mg/100 g) than either rice (1 mg) or wheat (3.5 mg). Kodo and foxtail, small millets, are high in antioxidant phytochemicals and dietary fiber, which are important in addressing many lifestyle-related health problems such as diabetes and obesity [M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), 2022]. Therefore, the dietary benefits of millets are demonstrated in Table 7.

Table 7. Comparative nutritional profile of selected cereals (per 100 g).

Source: Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)–National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), (2020); FAO Food Composition Tables (2019).

Despite many health benefits, millets accounted for only 2% of the total grain under the National Food Security Act in 2022–23, where over 93% consisted exclusively of rice and wheat [Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD), 2023]. Millets were included in a selective state-level pilot project through the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and ICDS, which reached less than 5% eligible individuals nationally (MicroSave Consulting (MSC), 2024). While millet interventions can produce measurably health benefits (Table 8).

Table 8. Health outcomes of millet-based nutritional interventions in select states.

Source: M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) (2022); National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) (2023); State Government pilot evaluations cited in Down To Earth (DTE) (2023); India Development Review (IDR) (2023).

Additional support is provided by clinical data for its applicability to the general public; evidence from a randomized controlled trial demonstrated a decrease of 21% in postprandial glucose levels among Type 2 diabetics (Sudha et al., 2019), and a meta-analysis from multiple studies showed 19 different associations between replacing refined cereal with millet leading to reductions of 17% in HbA1C levels (Anitha et al., 2021).

6 Value chains, processing, and market infrastructure

Although discussions regarding the International Year of Millets (IYM) highlighted the grain's nutritional and environmental benefits, a less apparent but significant limitation is the poorly developed value chains that link producers to consumers. In contrast to rice and wheat, which have seen their value chains extensively structured since the Green Revolution via centralized procurement, milling networks, and distribution through the Public Distribution System (PDS), millet value chains are still fragmented, localized, and undercapitalized. This has resulted in bottlenecks at each phase: from aggregation and processing to storage, branding, and retail (International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2021).

The initial obstacle is in fundamental processing. Millets, in contrast to polished rice or wheat flour, need dueling, cleaning, grading, and sometimes malting before they can be eaten or made into flour. Traditional household processing at the household level, common in rural India until the 1970s, has mostly vanished because of the presence of subsidized rice and wheat, whereas the capacity for industrial-scale millet processing is still significantly restricted. A FICCI–Dalberg (2023) study revealed that as of 2022, India had less than 200 medium-to-large-scale processing units for millet, whereas a state like Punjab had more than 1,000 rice mills. Insufficient machinery not only diminishes efficiency but also increases expenses. For instance, the costs of dueling small millets like foxtail and kodo may increase by 8–12 per kilogram, elevating retail prices and diminishing competitiveness against rice and wheat [M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), 2022].

The aggregation phase is also feeble. Smallholder millet farmers usually have fragmented fields averaging less than 1.5 hectares (Agricultural Census, 2015–16), making it difficult for them to achieve sufficient scale in marketing. Producer Organizations of Farmers (POFs) work to resolve issues of aggregation but experience limitations of capital and credit. A study of 220 millet-centric FPOs in Odisha, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh revealed that under 18% had access to working capital loans, and under 10% possessed primary processing machinery (NABARD, 2023). The lack of dependable aggregation platforms forces farmers to sell millets at low prices in local markets or depend on traders who take an excessive portion of the profits. The disparity in processing infrastructure can be clearly seen in Table 9, which compares estimated milling capacity for rice, wheat, and millets across India.

Table 9. Estimated processing and milling capacity by crop, 2022.

Source: FICCI–Dalberg (2023); Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MoFPI) (2022).

The tiny portion of millet processing capacity-only 2% of the overall-clarifies why, even during years of policy support, millets struggle to enter markets significantly. Storage exacerbates the issue. The central storage facilities of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and state warehousing corporations are mainly dedicated to rice and wheat, with minimum room for coarse cereals. According to MoCAF&PD (2022), less than 3% the total capacity of the FCI's is reserved for millets, resulting in annual post-harvest losses of 8%−10% [ICAR–Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology (CIPHET) 2021].

At the level of the consumer, the millet branding and retail experience remains very fragmented. In urban areas, the economically valuable items made from millet flour, such as breakfast cereals, snacks and gluten-free flour, are often called “superfoods,” have doubled and quadrupled in size between 2017 and 2022, with a compounded annual growth rate of 17% [All India Millet Business Association (AIMBA), 2023]. However, this increase is mainly related to the grain market, particularly in rural mandis, is stagnating with minimal demand and price support. This results in a split in the value chain, with millet being perceived as a costly lifestyle product for affluent consumers, but also as a low-value crop for smallholder farmers (Muthamilarasan and Prasad, 2021).

The political economy of millet in India is defined by a paradoxical situation although millet has been articulated, from both policy perspective and socially, as a “superfood” for nutrition, climate resilience and sustainability, value chains, which could link millet producers with profitable markets, are currently poorly developed and fragmented. As a result of this structural weakness, the continued failure of IYM to deliver any real transformation to the incomes of farmers or access to consumers can be attributed, in part, to this infrastructural weakness (National Food Security Mission (NFSM), 2022).

At the farm gate, price realization remains well below announced minimum support prices (MSPs). As discussed earlier, mandi-level rates for jowar in Maharashtra in 2022–23 averaged 2,400– 2,600 per quintal, nearly 600– 700 below the MSP of 3,180 (Agmarknet, 2023; Ministry of Agriculture, 2023). For ragi, the average price gap was even higher-746 per quintal (Microsave.net, 2024). These discrepancies are rooted not only in weak procurement systems but also in the absence of private sector buyers willing to purchase at scale. Unlike rice and wheat, where millers and large procurement agencies create stable demand, millet producers face thin, fragmented markets with limited institutional buyers.

The processing infrastructure for millets is one of the weakest links in this chain. According to the Indian Institute of Millets Research (IIMR, 2023), less than 15% of total millet production in India is processed beyond primary cleaning and grading. Most smallholder farmers sell millets in raw form, receiving low prices, while value addition in urban markets captures disproportionately higher margins. For instance, a farmer selling finger millet in Odisha in 2023 received an average of 28 per kg (2,800 per quintal), but ragi flour retailed in Bengaluru health stores at 90–110 per kg (IIMR, 2023; market surveys). This threefold markup illustrates how value addition bypasses farmers due to the absence of local processing clusters.

The creation of Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) has been promoted as a solution to combat these difficulties. During 2022, in India, nearly 7,000 FPOs were registered and actively involved in different types of crops; among them, 180 were specifically dealing with millet through FPOs for direct marketing and aggregating (SFAC, 2022). Notwithstanding the above, their impact is substantially limited by structural barriers: the percentage of millet-focused FPOs with credit lines of above 10 lakh is less than 25, and those with or renting processing machines such as dehullers, pulverisers, or extruders make up only 10% (NABARD, 2023). Consequently, their participation in the higher echelon of the value chain-ready-to-cook mixes, breakfast cereals, snack foods-remains very small.

The Table 10 shows the uneven distribution of value. In case of primary processed products, farmers' share is usually less than 35% of the consumer's share, while with high-value branded items; it is even less than 15%. The urban retail and food processing companies' profit concentration is an indicator of a larger problem: the commoditization of millets has only helped the middle-class consumers and the private brands, while the farmers are in a position of price takers at the lower end of the chain.

Table 10. Millet value chain: farm-gate to consumer prices, 2022–23.

Source: Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)–Indian Institute of Millets Research (IIMR), 2023; NABARD, 2023; retail market surveys, Hyderabad and Bengaluru (2023).

On the other hand, export markets can be seen as a consolation to some extent. India has exported around 160,000 tons of millets worth USD 64 million during the year 2022–23 and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Nepal, and Saudi Arabia were the leading destination countries [Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) 2022]. However, these exports were only a small fraction of India's millet production, showing that they were of no importance in the market's overall structure, less than 2% to be precise. Additionally, the demand for exports is mainly for specific varieties like pearl millet and foxtail millet leaving the other millets without much international acceptance.

The political economy of millet promotion further complicates the picture. On one side, the state's narrative positions millets as vehicles for climate resilience, nutrition security, and farmer welfare. On the other, the operational thrust has often been toward building a global “brand India” millet story showcasing recipes at G20 summits, hosting international food festivals, and facilitating export-oriented branding (The Hindu, 2023). This creates a tension between symbolic international projection and the structural domestic reforms required to strengthen farmer incomes and local consumption.

Private sector participation, though growing, has reinforced this duality. Millet biscuits, breakfast cereals, and snacks have been at the forefront of the major food companies, like ITC and Britannia, aiming to cater to the urban health-conscious consumers. Additionally, the millet sector has transformed the start-up scene with almost 200 start-ups, focusing solely on millet, e.g., foods during 2018 to 2023 and are backed by investments from venture capital and incubators like Nutrihub of IIMR (FICCI, 2023). This not only increased the variety for consumers but also made the product more noticeable; still, the markets remain limited to a small group of consumers, since the prices are too high for the rural or low-income population to afford them.

One of the causes that keep the regional inequities alive is the infrastructural deficiency namely, the missing decentralized procurement centers, the lack of cold storage, and the absence of modern milling technology in the main production areas such as Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh. The states that have been at the forefront of millet cultivation (like Odisha and Andhra Pradesh) have linked farmers closely to processing units and institutional markets while the others are still struggling to do so because of inadequate administrative support and lack of political prioritization (NABARD, 2023).

The export markets that the government aimed to focus on during the IYM still remain undeveloped. As shown in Table 11 in the year 2022–23, India exported only 0.32 million tons of millets, amounting to around US$ 64 million merely 0.12% of India's overall agri-food exports [Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), 2023]. While export volumes saw a slight rise in 2023, they continue to be focused on specific markets like the United States, UAE, and EU, primarily featuring processed ragi and bajra flour instead of whole grains.

Table 11. India's millet exports by major crop, 2022–23.

Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) (2022) provides background export statistics for 2018–2022; Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), (2023) provides crop-specific data for 2022–23. Source: Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) (2022), Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), (2023).

The structural fragility of value chains has two significant consequences. Without significant investments in decentralized primary processing, warehousing, and cold storage, the on-going production efforts will not result in lasting market returns for farmers. Secondly, the division between premium packaged millet items and inexpensive raw grains leads to disparities in market involvement, barring smallholders and tribal producers from benefitting from value addition. A conscious change in policy aimed at creating comprehensive millet value chains-from farming to processing and retail-via public funding, preferential credit, and farmer-led businesses is essential for maintaining the IYM momentum beyond mere symbolism.

7 Federalism, institutions, and inter-state disparities

The resurgence of millets in India is inherently linked to the political economy of federalism. Agriculture is a matter of state governance according to the Indian Constitution; however, procurement and food security strategies have traditionally been centralized via national bodies like the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), and government-funded programs such as the Public Distribution System (PDS). This institutional framework, which has favored rice and wheat since the Green Revolution, has resulted in varied capabilities among states regarding millets. The International Year of Millets (IYM) in 2023 provided a chance to readjust this equilibrium, yet in reality, it reflected numerous structural inequalities inherent in India's federal food policy.

The procurement stage reveals the level of these disparities through the concentration of tasks in particular states. According to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution [Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD), 2024], Karnataka, among the other states, accounted for over 60% of total millet buying during the year 2022–23, while Odisha and Andhra Pradesh combined only 25%. Conversely, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, the top states in the production of sorghum and pearl millet, together contributed to less than 2% of total millet procuring. This inequality is the result of difference in institutional capability rather than agro-ecological factors: ever since 2018, Karnataka has been running its “State Millet Mission,” which includes district-level procurement centers, processing units funded by the state, and ragi being a part of the PDS and mid-day meals. In states that do not have such programs, MSP announcements are purely theoretical.

The financial distributions are a significant factor in pointing out these disparities. The comparison of the agricultural budgets of the states revealed that Karnataka allotted a whopping 410 crore for millet development during the period of 2018 to 2023, while the amounts spent by Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh were merely 46 crore and less than 20 crore, respectively (State Finance Accounts, 2023). The Odisha Millet Mission, which was established in 2017 with the backing of NABARD, has been investing over 300 crores in multiple sectors such as farmer incentives, community processing units, and women's self-help groups for millet promotion activities (NABARD, 2023). The high difference in financial resources devoted has a great influence on the procurement results, the number of farmers involved and the network of consumers. For the purpose of comparison, Table 12 presents the procurement of millet in the leading states during the IYM period.

Table 12. Estimated farmer losses due to MSP-market price gap, 2022–23.

Source: Calculated from Ministry of Agriculture (2023); (Agmarknet, 2023).

Table 13 illustrates three degrees of inequality. Initially, there exists a mismatch in production and procurement: high-production regions such as Rajasthan and Maharashtra are nearly missing from procurement, while smaller producers like Odisha perform exceptionally well due to focused initiatives. Secondly, there exists a federal imbalance in institutional capability, with only those states that prioritize politics and have committed missions able to effectively utilize central MSP policies. Thirdly, there is a geographical exclusion effect: tribal and dry land farmers in non-priority countries are neglected in public procurement, despite being important producers of millet.

Table 13. Millet procurement performance across major states, 2022–23.

Source: Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD), 2024; State Finance Accounts, 2023; NABARD, 2023.

This disparity has important consequences for India's food security framework. The National Food Security Act (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution NFSA, 2013) allows for the substitution of rice and wheat in the PDS with millets; however, the inconsistent procurement foundation means this substitution is only practiced in a few countries. In 2022–23, more than 1.8 million households in Karnataka had access to ragi via the PDS, whereas fewer than 20,000 households in Rajasthan-despite being the top bajra producer-had access to millet-oriented PDS entitlements [Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD), 2024]. The inconsistent incorporation of school mid-day meals reflects a comparable trend, exacerbating nutritional inequalities between states.

Fiscal decentralization is mainly responsible for this problem. There are two major programs that are used to promote small grains and promote their use: The National Food Security Mission on Coarse Cereals (NFSM-CC) and The Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY). The two major grants from the federal government to the states have a large degree of discretion for using the funds allocated to each state. Statistics show that the absorption rates (the percentage of granted funds used by the states) for the federal funds from these two programs vary widely between the states. For example, for the year 2022–2023, data show that the state of Orissa utilized 92% of its NFSM-CC allocation, while the states of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra each utilized less than 40% of their NFSM-CC allocation (CAG Reports 2023). There are many reasons why different states have different levels of fund absorption, including, but not limited to, the quality of administration in each state, differences in extension (agricultural support services) systems between states, and differences in political support from elected officials in each of the states.

There hasn't been significant effort put forth by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to enhance the procurement of millets because they have had logistical problems with regards to storing the product. The impact of continuing to store millets has been put on the various state civil supplies corporations, state warehousing agencies, and in some cases cooperative organizations such as the Odisha State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation (OMFED) that have expanded into producing millet-based products. Without a defined coordination framework at the central-state government level, implementation of IYM has tended to be too dependent on a few proactive states which have negatively impacted the “national” focus for the initiative.

Differences between state approaches to both procurement and program implementation highlight a systemic gap in the millet revival effort in India, where generally there have been state-specific silos rather than a unified national initiative. That said, the success evidenced in Karnataka and Odisha of the combination of political will and institutional capacity demonstrates that possibilities for replication exist throughout the country. Sadly, the overall condition is one of inequity and isolation; therefore, to achieve a complete transition to millets throughout India, the overall structure of National Food Security must be redesigned such that every state can participate, and states with high production levels are encouraged to invest in procurement, processing and distribution.

8 Environmental and climate resilience dimensions of millets

Millets have established a distinctive position not only as nutrient sources but also as strategic resources in India's agricultural sector that offer climate resilience and sustainability. Their cultivation, which is possible with very few external inputs, low water consumption and climatic stressors tolerances even higher than that of rice and wheat, is best suited to India's semi-arid and rainfed areas. For all these fantastic crop-related properties, millets have been systematically marginalized in the past because of the policy bias toward the rice-wheat system under the Green Revolution. The International Year of Millets (IYM) has once again raised the question about the significance of millets in reviving the two opposing situations in India: the one relating to agrarian distress and the other to environmental degradation. However, it remains uncertain if this new attention will result in a shift in crop patterns as before.

The main point of the environmental argument for millets is their water economy. Rice farming is believed to use 4,000–5,000 liters of water on average for every kilogram of grain produced, while sorghum and pearl millet require only 1,200 to 1,800 liters per kilogram. This represents the water saving of nearly 65% [ICAR–Indian Institute of Millets Research (IIMR), 2022]. Finger millet is even more efficient, requiring 1,000–1,200 liters per kilogram. In a country where groundwater is used for almost 63% of irrigation and is being pumped out faster than it can be replenished, which is especially true in the rice-wheat areas of Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh [Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), 2022]-millets are the environmentally friendly option.

In the same manner, millets have the lowest GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions when compared to the most important cereals. According to life-cycle assessments, the carbon emissions from irrigated rice are 2.7–3.0 kg CO₂ equivalents per kg of grains and these emissions are mainly due to methane released from the flooded fields (Pathak et al., 2018). On the other hand, the total CO₂ equivalent to the emissions from the production of pearl millet and sorghum is just 0.5–0.8 kg per kg, while finger millet is around 0.7 kg. The differences here might seem small but they really aren't; increasing the area under millet cultivation in regions susceptible to water scarcity and GHG emissions could significantly help India meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement as well as its NDCs (nationally determined contributions). The environmental footprint of rice, wheat and selected millets is compared in Table 14.

Table 14. Comparative environmental indicators of major cereals in India, 2022.

Source: ICAR–Indian Institute of Millets Research (IIMR) (2022); Pathak et al. (2018); Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2021); Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) (2022).

The Table 14 effectively points out the ecological reason for integrating millets into the main crop-groups: they need less water, they produce little or no emissions, and they are able to survive the hottest and driest conditions. Pearl millet is one of the varieties that can withstand too high of 44 °C and show about 80% drought resistance, which is very much needed to face the IPCC (2021) prediction that India will be suffering from more frequent and intense heat waves and a water shortage of 20%−30% in semi-arid regions by 2050.

Not only are millets climate-resilient but they also play a major role in the conservation of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. They are cultivated differently from rice and wheat which would require strict monocultures and chemical inputs. Besides, millets are generally grown together with pulses and oilseeds, which not only help in maintaining soil fertility but also guarantee the farmers' income from diversified sources. The results of field experiments in Telangana and Karnataka indicate that the millet-pulse intercropping systems increase the soil's organic carbon by 20%−25% as compared to the rice monoculture (ICRISAT, 2021). Also, most of the millet crops are rain-fed and if any fertilizer is used it would be organic, so their nitrogen runoff and groundwater contamination are minimized.

Nonetheless, the environmental advantages are not instantly realized on a large scale. The distribution of the current cropping patterns is still very much in favor to the major crops: rice and wheat hemp together account for almost 80% of irrigation done for cereals, while millets are limited to below 15%, mainly in rainfed areas [Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (DAC&FW), 2023]. Without appropriate agro-ecological planning, the shift of millets to irrigated areas could ruin their environmental benefit, especially when the adoption of the input-intensive methods of production is involved. This apprehension emphasizes the demand for the policy measures that would not only favor millet production but also integrate it with the environment-friendly farming systems.

One of the aspects that is frequently ignored is energy intensity. The post-harvest process of rice and wheat entails operations such as peeling and cold storage, which are considerably more energy-intensive than those performed on millets. Research by TERI (2022) indicated that the average energy use for processing of polished rice is 2.5 MJ/kg, in contrast to 1.2 MJ/kg for finger millet. Thus, the scaling of food processing made from millet is in line with India's clean energy and sustainable consumption objectives.

The scaling of millet-based climate solutions, however, is still hindered by structural barriers. The hot weather and unpreparedness still resilient farmers in those areas to switch from millets to one of the commercial cropss like soybean and cotton due to being attracted by the price and delivery guarantees (Pingali et al., 2019). If there are no corresponding changes in marketing and procurement, the sustainability argument for millets may only be valid in theory.

Thus, the climate and environmental advantages of millets are robust and empirically grounded, but their realization requires systemic integration into India's food grain policy. Moving beyond symbolic declarations like the IYM, India must redesign procurement incentives, invest in agro-ecological research, and create farmer-centric programs that reward ecological services. Millets should not only be framed as climate-smart crops but also as instruments of just transitions for farmers operating in some of the most vulnerable agro-ecologies.

9 Policy lessons and conclusion

The year 2023 has been declared as the International Year of Millets (IYM), marking the beginning of a new era in the global recognition of these grains, but the Indian situation presents the meeting point of symbolic approval and a significant agrarian change. National policies and state case studies provide evidence of a structural gap that has continued through the years: although millets have been introduced in the argument, their glamor in integration into procurement, consumption, and farmer incomes is still limited and uneven. The lessons drawn from this gap are vital for delineating a more sustainable and fair millet economy.

To begin with, the procurement structure continues to be the foremost bottleneck. In spite of MSP hikes-3,180 for jowar, 2,350 for bajra, and 3,446 for ragi in 2022–23 the actual mandi prices remained lower than these standards consistently, with 250–746 per quintal being the difference [Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD), 2024; Agmarknet, 2023]. The coverage of procurement was insignificant; only 17% of the jowar target was achieved, ragi under PMGKAY accounted for just 4.9% of production, and bajra procurement did not exceed 3% MicroSave Consulting (MSC), 2024; The Hindu Business Line, 2023. On the other hand, rice and wheat are procured to the tune of 35%−40% of the national production with PDS integration being almost universal [Food Corporation of India (FCI), 2022]. If millets are not brought into this procurement ecosystem, the argument for their elevation will remain only a formality. The Odisha case, where ragi procurement was almost 48% under the Odisha Millet Mission (Government of Odisha, 2023), shows that success can be achieved through decentralized infrastructure, budgetary prioritization, and political will.

Secondly, the geographic concentration of the industry worsens the inequality between regions. Most of the millet procurement in 2023 was by the states of Karnataka and Odisha while other big producers like Maharashtra and Rajasthan were not considered at all [Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (MoCAF&PD), 2024]. The political economy clarifies this difference: the states with powerful cooperatives or mission-based organizations have moved ahead while the ones that rely more on the cash crop system such as sugarcane or cereals for export have paid little attention to millets. This situation not only distorts the market signals but also increases the alienation of farmers in the dryland areas where millets are really suitable. The conclusion is obvious-the government should come up with a federal coordination mechanism to regulate buying, guarantee equal infrastructure, and avoid regional inequalities from undermining national goals.

Thirdly, Market integration, on the other hand, is still not developed, especially on the demand side. The grain which was earlier exported at 1.8 million tons in 2020 has now reached 2.9 million tons in 2023 [Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), 2023], but the growth in domestic consumption has been slow and socially marked. Urban niche markets that are mainly health-conscious middle-class consumers have been developed very quickly but rural consumers are still suffering from standing issues of higher prices and availability. Due to retail mark-ups while the farmers sell jowar at 2,500 per quintal, the same grain is sold as flour or “health mix” at prices exceeding 60–80 per kg in big metropolitan supermarkets [Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), 2023; FICCI, 2023]. This is a case of value-chain asymmetry where the middlemen capture most of the profit while the cultivators continue to be in low returns. Unless farmer producer organizations (FPOs), cooperatives, and small businesses are equipped with processing units, branding support, and credit, the millet economy will only strengthen the class divisions rather than bridging them.

Fourthly, Millets' nutritional potential has been recognized, but still, it is not fully utilized in food security schemes. Although their nutrition is superior with higher content of fiber, iron, and calcium than that of rice and wheat (ICMR-NIN, 2021) millets were less than 2% of the total grain distribution of PDS for 2022–23 [Food Corporation of India (FCI), 2022]. In the mid-day meal program, a major welfare scheme, too, the situation is inconsistent regarding the inclusion of millets in state-wise coverage. This neglect is not only about depriving the people of health benefits but also about exhausting an opportunity to expand demand through policy measures. A universal requirement for millets inclusion in PDS and school feeding, supported by central subsidies, could not only increase the number of markets for farmers but also provide the nutrition needed by the targeted people groups.

Finally, the campaign-like activities are likely to cause a decline in the momentum gained. The IYM gave a push to the awareness, but the transfer of the benefits to the other side might be difficult without institutional support. The case of pulses and oilseeds has shown that global or national campaigns have to be accompanied by changes in the system in order to keep the farmers' interest alive (Pingali et al., 2019). Millets need not only marketing strategies but also long-term agro-ecological integration which might include investments in dry land irrigation, soil health, and climate adaptation techniques. Regions with tribal populations like Bastar and Dindori are a reminder that subsistence farmers who still rely on millets for their food security are the most likely to be left out of market-oriented strategies (NABARD, 2023; ActionAid, 2022). The “millet revival” campaign without social equity safeguards could intensify rural distress instead of alleviating it.

To achieve true reform, we need to look at actual policy trade-offs; for example, providing universal coverage for millet procurement will require substantial funding and logistics to set up. A more fiscally realistic alternative is to create regional procurement systems by concentrating resources in areas that produce large amounts of millet but have limited procurement capacity. However, without additional federal support for both transfers and capacity building, regional disparities may be maintained. Creating demand for millets through the Public Distribution System (PDS) or school feeding programs is achieved by including them in these programs. This will create demand at both ends of the supply chain, but also requires ensuring that there are no supply chain gaps, as well as dealing with consumer preferences that may vary from one region to another. India's export-oriented millet branding strategy and the need to build domestic consumption markets for low-income populations also warrant explicit policy attention: prioritizing export markets may accelerate value chain development but could further elevate retail prices, excluding the communities the IYM ostensibly sought to serve. Ultimately, the transformation of millets from a symbolic priority into a structural instrument of food security, farmer welfare, and ecological sustainability requires moving beyond the campaign model. India possesses the agronomic resources, institutional knowledge, and federal architecture to achieve this as Karnataka and Odisha have demonstrated. The challenge is one of political will and institutional coordination. Whether the IYM becomes a genuine inflection point in India's food system or a historical footnote in symbolic governance will depend on whether these structural lessons are translated into sustained policy action in the cycles that follow.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Prashant Sharma, ICAR - Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Center, India

Reviewed by: Narmada Hidangmayum, Central Agricultural University, India

Sudhanand Prasad Lal, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, India

Sonaly Bhatnagar, Pandit Sant Ram Government College Baijnath, India