India’s National Action Plan on AMR 2.0 (2025-29): Analysis

📌 Introduction

Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) has emerged as a global One Health crisis — spanning human health, veterinary usage, agriculture, aquaculture, food systems, and waste. India’s NAP-AMR 2.0 aims to address this interconnected threat through coordinated multi-sectoral action.

AMR moves beyond hospitals — through soil, water, livestock, markets, and food systems. It is a national development risk, not merely a medical issue.

---

🧭 Evolution from NAP-AMR 1.0 (2017-2021)

Achievements

• Raised national awareness on AMR

• Multi-sectoral participation initiated

• Expanded surveillance systems and lab networks

• Introduced One Health approach

• Encouraged stewardship in human/animal health

Limitations

• Weak State-level execution

• Only 7 States developed action plans

• Reliance on fragmented, sector-specific efforts

• No uniform multisectoral governance structure at State level

Key determinants of AMR lie under State jurisdiction: health systems, veterinary regulation, pharmacies, agriculture, food safety, waste management.

---

🌱 NAP-AMR 2.0: What’s New & Stronger?

Focus Areas	Key Improvements
Governance	NITI Aayog-led coordination committee
Private Sector	Recognised as a crucial partner (major healthcare provider)
Innovation	Rapid diagnostics, point-of-care tools, and antibiotic alternatives
Environment	Wastewater monitoring, food systems, aquaculture, soil contamination
Surveillance	More integrated across human-animal-environment sectors
Tracking	National dashboard for progress reporting
Timeline + Roles	Clearer responsibilities and resource planning

This shows a shift from intent to implementation.

---

⚠️ Major Gaps / Concerns

Despite improvements, the biggest weakness remains:

There is no mandatory mechanism forcing States to form AMR plans or AMR Cells.

Key gaps:

• No Centre-State institutional review platform

• No statutory accountability

• No financial incentive (unlike NHM, TB programme)

• No joint monitoring missions

Thus, national guidance may remain non-binding advice.

---

🧩 Why Centre-State Coordination is Critical?

• AMR determinants are governed by States, not Centre

• Requires coordination across:

  • Health

  • Animal husbandry

  • Agriculture

  • Fisheries

  • Food safety

  • Urban & rural waste management

• Without uniform systems → patchy implementation → national vulnerability

Example: National TB Programme & NHM show success through
✔ Shared accountability
✔ Joint supervision
✔ Dedicated funding support

---

🎯 The Way Forward — Strengthening NAP-AMR 2.0

Recommendation	Expected Outcome
Create a National-State AMR Council	Political buy-in & mutual accountability
Mandatory State AMR Plans	Universal implementation
Conditional NHM-linked funding	Drives stewardship & capacity-building
Regular joint reviews by NITI Aayog	Timely course corrections
Include municipal and Panchayati Raj systems	Strengthen waste and food chain safety
Private sector partnerships	Covers bulk of health & veterinary care

AMR control must shift from technical action → governance reform.

---

🏁 Conclusion

NAP-AMR 2.0 offers a sound scientific and strategic foundation.
But success depends on federal coordination, sustained political attention, and financing.

If India strengthens Centre-State mechanisms:
✔ AMR can become a manageable risk
✔ India can emerge as a global One Health leader

If not:
❌ It risks becoming another well-designed plan without nationwide impact.

---

✍️ UPSC Mains Value Add

Quote to use:
“AMR is not only a health issue; it is a development challenge woven into our food, environment, and economy.”

Keywords to enhance answers:

• One Health integration

• Whole-of-government approach

• Stewardship & surveillance

• Preventive governance

• Centre-State cooperative federalism