_edited.jpg)
Political Harvest
Every autumn in Punjab, India, the fields light up. Farmers set fire to the leftover stubble from their rice harvests, clearing the way for their next crop. It’s a quick fix, but as the smoke billows into the sky, it brings with it a choking haze that blankets entire regions and reaches as far as New Delhi. This seasonal smoke-out has been blamed for dangerously high air pollution levels, and the government has tried to stamp out the fires with fines and incentives. But what if the reason behind the persistence of this practice is just as political as practical?
For many farmers in Punjab, burning leftover crop residue is the most affordable way to prepare their fields for the next planting season. Alternatives, like specialized machinery to manage stubble, are expensive and time-consuming. Despite government subsidies to help offset these costs, many farmers stick to the old ways. And in areas where politicians have a vested interest in agriculture—like owning land themselves—the enforcement of anti-burning laws seems to lag.
This study dives into the data, using satellite images to track burning events and cross-referencing this with political records, focusing on which constituencies are led by farmer-politicians. The findings are striking: areas governed by these leaders tend to see more crop burning than others. It seems that when those in charge have a personal stake in farming, there might be less push to crack down on burning, even when it contributes to air pollution.
A Conflict of Interest in the Fields

This satellite image, taken from Bhuvaneshwari et al. (2019), shows extensive crop residue burning in the northern region of India, particularly in Punjab. The red dots indicate active fires, which contribute to a thick layer of smoke spreading across the region, affecting nearby areas, including Delhi. This practice is a major source of air pollution, releasing harmful particulates and greenhouse gases, thus significantly impacting air quality and public health.
The implications of these findings go beyond Punjab’s borders. They highlight a larger issue of how political interests can shape environmental outcomes. If politicians are putting their own interests or those of their community above broader environmental goals, it can undermine efforts to reduce pollution and protect public health. This isn't just about smoky skies—it’s about the potential for conflict of interest to hold back progress in tackling environmental challenges.
For policymakers, understanding this dynamic is crucial. Efforts to reduce crop burning have often focused on providing technical solutions, like introducing machinery to manage crop residue or offering financial incentives. But if those tasked with enforcing these policies have reasons to look the other way, even the best technology won’t solve the problem. It suggests that the fight against crop burning might need to be as much about governance as it is about innovation.