Viral Desai
India’s development story cannot be judged only by the factories it builds, the investments it attracts or the digital infrastructure it creates. It must also be judged by the air surrounding its schools, homes and workplaces. Economic progress loses some of its meaning when the people expected to power it must breathe pollution every day. As India strengthens its manufacturing ambitions and technological capabilities, clean air must become a central condition of development.
The country has already committed substantial resources to this challenge. In July 2026, the Union government reported that approximately ₹16,424 crore in performance-linked grants had been provided to 130 cities under the National Clean Air Programme and associated funding mechanisms during 2019–20 to 2025–26. Cities had reported using approximately ₹11,576 crore. These figures demonstrate a significant public commitment, but they also raise a question: how effectively is this expenditure addressing the sources of pollution?
A January 2026 assessment by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air reported that road dust management accounted for approximately 68 per cent of the spending it examined. Industry and domestic fuel use each received less than one per cent. These proportions do not capture every investment in pollution control, including expenditure undertaken by industries themselves, but they warrant scrutiny of whether clean-air funding is sufficiently aligned with local emission sources.
Road dust deserves attention, and controlling it cannot be dismissed as merely cosmetic. However, cleaner-looking roads cannot tell us whether the surrounding air is safe. Fine particulate pollution also comes from combustion and from chemical reactions involving gases released by industries, vehicles and power plants. An effective strategy must therefore address both particles emitted directly and the pollutants that form additional particles in the atmosphere.
The first correction must be to make expenditure follow evidence. Cities need reliable monitoring, regularly updated emission inventories and source-apportionment studies that identify which activities contribute to pollution. Satellite observations can strengthen this understanding, but they must complement dependable ground measurements. Funding decisions should then reflect local conditions, with public reporting that connects expenditure to emission reductions and sustained improvements in air quality.
For industrial India, this transition must combine accountability with practical support. Smaller enterprises often face financial and technical barriers when replacing inefficient boilers, improving combustion or installing pollution-control equipment. Affordable credit, shared infrastructure and technical assistance can help them comply. Cleaner fuels may offer transitional benefits in suitable applications, while electrification supported by cleaner power should remain a longer-term priority. Support must come with verified performance and consistent enforcement.
India must also examine the environmental terms on which it welcomes investment. Global supply chains can separate the places where goods are consumed from those where pollution is generated. That creates a legitimate concern about unequal environmental burdens, but it does not justify describing every foreign investment as an attempt to export pollution. The stronger argument is that India should compete through capability, efficiency and innovation, while making environmental responsibility a firm condition of doing business.
Domestic and multinational companies should face credible, consistently enforced requirements for air emissions, wastewater management and resource efficiency. Environmental assessments should examine the combined burden of industrial clusters, rather than treating every project as if it operates alone. Wastewater reuse and zero-liquid-discharge systems should be required where technically appropriate, with careful management of their energy needs and residual waste. Permissions must be followed by inspections, transparent data and consequences for violations.
The expansion of artificial intelligence adds another dimension. The International Energy Agency’s 2025 assessment projected that global data-centre electricity consumption would more than double to around 945 terawatt-hours by 2030. It also identified the United States and China as the largest contributors to that projected increase. The evidence therefore supports concern about growing energy demand, rather than a blanket claim that Western data centres are relocating their environmental footprints to India.
India should nevertheless prepare for the demands of its own digital expansion. Data-centre approvals should account for electricity availability, water stress, cooling requirements and backup-generator emissions. Developers should help finance additional clean generation, storage and grid capacity, with transparent reporting of energy and water use. Digital leadership should include the ability to build infrastructure whose environmental demands are understood and responsibly managed from the beginning.
Another essential shift concerns geography. Air pollution moves across municipal and state boundaries, connecting urban traffic, industrial clusters, agricultural activity and household energy use. The World Bank’s support for India’s air-quality management increasingly recognises this through an airshed approach. Regional planning offers a way to address pollution across the geographical area in which it accumulates and travels, rather than limiting action to the jurisdiction where a monitoring station records it.
This approach needs shared emission inventories, coordinated action plans and clear responsibility across governments. Farmers need workable alternatives to crop-residue burning; expanding cities need dependable public transport; and industrial belts need coordinated enforcement. Seasonal emergency measures can provide a response during severe episodes, but year-round reductions require institutions that continue working after the smog leaves the headlines.
Ecological restoration should strengthen this effort. Native urban forests, protected green spaces and appropriately designed vegetation can contribute to healthier, more liveable neighbourhoods. Miyawaki plantations may suit selected sites, provided species selection, water availability and long-term maintenance receive attention. Yet plantation numbers should never become permission to release more pollution. Trees must be valued as living ecological infrastructure, alongside direct action to reduce emissions.
Public participation must also mature beyond occasional awareness campaigns. Citizens can help prevent waste burning, report violations, protect local green spaces and demand reliable public transport and accessible pollution data. Schools, resident associations and industrial organisations can turn concern into sustained action. Clean air deserves a permanent place in civic priorities, supported by institutions that make responsible choices practical.
India has the opportunity to demonstrate that industrial ambition and environmental responsibility can advance together. Doing so will require better-directed spending, cleaner production, coordinated governance and public commitment. Every investment decision should account for the conditions in which people will live and work. The true measure of progress will include whether the next generation inherits an economy that offers opportunity and an atmosphere that allows it to breathe.
(The content of this article reflects the views of writer and contributor, not necessarily those of the publisher and editor. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only)
Leave Your Comment