Self-reliance versus global dependence: The food security balancing act
For India, careful use of imports can ease pressure in edible oils or pulses without hurting farm incentives, so long as the rules are predictable and matched by investment at home.
India’s path from PL-480 wheat in the 1960s to cereal surpluses in the 1970s shows how policy and science can change outcomes. Recent years tell a more complex story. We ship rice and wheat to the world, yet we still buy large volumes of edible oil and some pulses. Analysts expect edible oil imports to stay high in 2025–26, a reminder that no country can supply everything it eats at all times.
Two ideas should guide the balance we strike. Food security has a strong home base. It relies on steady production of staples and nutrient-rich foods, reasonable prices for consumers, and incomes that keep farmers on the land. It also has an external side. Imports protect households when local supply dips, and export markets support farmers when harvests are good. India’s National Food Security Act gives this approach legal shape by covering a large share of the population with subsidised grain, but that safety net still depends on secure availability in the first place.
There are clear reasons to back domestic capacity. Local production shields people from sudden price spikes abroad. It gives governments tools to stabilise markets through procurement and public stocks. It supports rural jobs and investment. Today, the same logic extends to nutrition. Pulses are India’s affordable protein. Oilseeds matter for both prices and diet quality. Raising yields with better seed systems, reliable irrigation where feasible, agronomy support, and improved storage helps households most exposed to food inflation. Policy is already trying to close these gaps. The Mission for Aatmanirbharta in pulses aims to lift output and reduce the need for imports through a mix of area expansion, intercropping and stronger procurement.
Multi-country study
Yet full self-sufficiency is not realistic. Modern farming draws on global flows of fertiliser, fuel, machinery and science. Even large countries cannot meet every food-group need across seasons. A recent multi-country study finds that many nations fall short of meeting their dietary guidelines from domestic production alone. It also warns that low self-sufficiency combined with reliance on a few trading partners increases exposure to shocks. That message supports a practical rule. Do not abandon trade. Spread risk across suppliers and avoid single points of failure.
Trade helps in other ways too. It brings down costs through specialisation, softens the blow from regional weather events, and widens diets. For India, careful use of imports can ease pressure in edible oils or pulses without hurting farm incentives, so long as the rules are predictable and matched by investment at home. Predictable export policies during good harvests also help farmers plan and build India’s reputation as a steady partner in the region.
A risk-first lens shows where to place the line between what we grow and what we buy. Climate volatility compresses yields through heat, erratic rain and floods. The response is not a slogan but a scale-up of practices that already work in the field: heat- and drought-tolerant varieties, water-saving methods, and timely weather advice. Energy costs are another lever. When fuel and fertiliser become expensive, food becomes expensive. Cross-country evidence for emerging economies links higher energy intensity to worse nutrition outcomes, while agricultural land use and cereal output ease that pressure. In short, efficiency gains in pumps, primary processing, cold chains and logistics pay off directly in the food basket. Concentration risk also matters. If most supplies come from one or two countries, their problems become ours. Diversification is the best fix.
Response to Ukraine conflict
The world’s response to the Ukraine conflict offers a cautionary note. In 2022, many governments restricted food exports. At the peak, the measures touched a notable share of calories in world trade and left importers scrambling. That experience supports the case for steady, rule-bound policy at home and abroad. Use clear triggers and time limits for trade measures. Negotiate government-to-government supply frameworks for pulses and edible oils with a spread of origins. Publish stock norms and release calendars so public buffers stabilise rather than surprise the market.
A coherent domestic agenda follows. Produce at home what is strategically core. That includes staples for the public distribution system and selected nutrition-critical gaps. Do it efficiently and with regard for local ecologies. Align incentives with that goal. If procurement rewards only paddy and wheat in water-stressed basins, it can lock in risk. If trade rules swing without notice, they discourage investment in oilseeds and pulses. Finally, link production more tightly to nutrition. Decentralised procurement of coarse cereals and pulses where they fit the ecology, and closer ties between procurement, the PDS and school meals, can shift diets in the right direction.
None of this asks us to pick a side in an abstract debate. It asks us to order our steps. Raise productivity where the gaps are most binding. Lower the energy used to bring each calorie from field to plate. Diversify both cropping patterns and import origins. Make trade predictable enough that farmers, millers and consumers can plan. Internationally, India should keep shaping fair food-trade rules and build regional arrangements that prevent panic policies from cascading into crises. Domestically, steady investment in climate-smart research and extension will keep the “self” in self-reliance real. The Green Revolution showed what domestic capacity can do. Recent shocks showed that interdependence, handled with care, is a hedge. Blending the two is the surest way to keep the Indian plate steady and better nourished.
The author is Assistant Professor, Department of Economics & Finance, BITS Pilani
Published on January 10, 2026
