While I get the reasons why centre will push with the minerals amendment act despite all qualms of the states, here's the state position I can't understand
1. Its only in a handful of states where Mineral revenue receipts contribute meaningfully to its overall revenue
2. Bigger states like Rajasthan and UP are not only deprived of mineral production, but they're least minerals endowed.
Now why would states with lower mineral endowment not use this as a method to make terms equal against each other?
It's possible that some states might have actually opposed it, which is something we couldn't look at for bandwidth reasons. But even in mineral revenue receipts are not a big share of all revenue receipts, a) at least in absolute terms they might be huge, and b) they will use that power to attach "value-addition" conditions on mining companies. That would explain why Karnataka and Tamil Nadu may be opposed to it.
oh yeah that makes some sense, but to brazenly oppose it just for the sake of the 'value-add' seems is pretty crazy ngl.
Also just for fun, asked grok and perplexity to make list of states whose executives have made a public remark of opposition towards MMDR: Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhatisgarh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. So only Himachal Pradesh and Punjab remain as non-NDA state powers who did not openly oppose MMDR (atleast yet).
"This isn’t an unreasonable argument by any means. India is 100% import-dependent for lithium, cobalt, and nickel: the three minerals most central to its battery manufacturing ambitions. Over 80% of our lithium imports come from China. Our critical mineral import bill has more than doubled between FY21 and FY24. A uniform, predictable fiscal regime may, in theory, make it easier to attract private mining investment."
No Indian state (except J&K that does not have statehood) has any meaningful deposits of lithium, nickel or cobalt discovered so far. This is the most lame argument to centralisation.
Which is why we write "in theory". There's also a case to be made that centralization indeed couldn't solve all these problems. What we couldn't add in the piece for length reasons is that in the 2024 judgement, the one dissenting judge gave precisely these reasons that have been invoked in the 2026 Bill.
I read your articles very carefully; please take my criticism in the right spirit :-) You folks are talented, no doubt.
To respond to your comment - I would have argued with the same point if I were the state government counsel. But govt solicitors usually are paid fixed salary and not as per winnability of the case :-)
I personally prefer the two-story format. I feel two stories give more variety and, more importantly, help cover different topics in greater depth and give more clarity. I don’t think the extra tidbits are necessary if they come at the cost of covering two stories properly. I’d prefer two well-covered stories rather than one long story with additional tidbits.
i am so happy for this big one story than 2 small stories, every day I usually used to skip the 2nd story but now i am finishing one but properly understanding everything neatly
Just curious as to how USA deals with these mining issues considering more power of states and comparitively laxer federal laws, followed with easy privatisation in many sectors.
Could some parts be adopted for our country? and why not to stimulate these investments, the centre can give tax breaks to states who prepare roads and other infrastructure to facilitate better mining, hence giving state incentive to build the infra should they be guaranteed more revenue?
While I get the reasons why centre will push with the minerals amendment act despite all qualms of the states, here's the state position I can't understand
1. Its only in a handful of states where Mineral revenue receipts contribute meaningfully to its overall revenue
2. Bigger states like Rajasthan and UP are not only deprived of mineral production, but they're least minerals endowed.
Now why would states with lower mineral endowment not use this as a method to make terms equal against each other?
On principle, federalism; but in reality?
It's possible that some states might have actually opposed it, which is something we couldn't look at for bandwidth reasons. But even in mineral revenue receipts are not a big share of all revenue receipts, a) at least in absolute terms they might be huge, and b) they will use that power to attach "value-addition" conditions on mining companies. That would explain why Karnataka and Tamil Nadu may be opposed to it.
oh yeah that makes some sense, but to brazenly oppose it just for the sake of the 'value-add' seems is pretty crazy ngl.
Also just for fun, asked grok and perplexity to make list of states whose executives have made a public remark of opposition towards MMDR: Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhatisgarh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. So only Himachal Pradesh and Punjab remain as non-NDA state powers who did not openly oppose MMDR (atleast yet).
"This isn’t an unreasonable argument by any means. India is 100% import-dependent for lithium, cobalt, and nickel: the three minerals most central to its battery manufacturing ambitions. Over 80% of our lithium imports come from China. Our critical mineral import bill has more than doubled between FY21 and FY24. A uniform, predictable fiscal regime may, in theory, make it easier to attract private mining investment."
No Indian state (except J&K that does not have statehood) has any meaningful deposits of lithium, nickel or cobalt discovered so far. This is the most lame argument to centralisation.
Which is why we write "in theory". There's also a case to be made that centralization indeed couldn't solve all these problems. What we couldn't add in the piece for length reasons is that in the 2024 judgement, the one dissenting judge gave precisely these reasons that have been invoked in the 2026 Bill.
I read your articles very carefully; please take my criticism in the right spirit :-) You folks are talented, no doubt.
To respond to your comment - I would have argued with the same point if I were the state government counsel. But govt solicitors usually are paid fixed salary and not as per winnability of the case :-)
I personally prefer the two-story format. I feel two stories give more variety and, more importantly, help cover different topics in greater depth and give more clarity. I don’t think the extra tidbits are necessary if they come at the cost of covering two stories properly. I’d prefer two well-covered stories rather than one long story with additional tidbits.
Hey Gowrav, thanks for the feedback, very valuable.
I'd love to chat with you further on this. Could you send me a mail at pranav.manie@zerodha.com?
keep the tidbits sir
Sure thing!
i am so happy for this big one story than 2 small stories, every day I usually used to skip the 2nd story but now i am finishing one but properly understanding everything neatly
Feedback taken!
The two story format felt more interesting. A small suggestion if the second story could cover an international story.
Feedback taken!
Just curious as to how USA deals with these mining issues considering more power of states and comparitively laxer federal laws, followed with easy privatisation in many sectors.
Could some parts be adopted for our country? and why not to stimulate these investments, the centre can give tax breaks to states who prepare roads and other infrastructure to facilitate better mining, hence giving state incentive to build the infra should they be guaranteed more revenue?