Nandini Milk Price Hike: Shivakumar Challenges Modi

The remarks came amid criticism from opposition leaders and protests over the higher cost of milk and other dairy products. Shivakumar argued that the revision was necessary because dairy farmers faced rising expenses for cattle feed, fodder, medicines, transportation and animal care. He maintained that the government had to balance consumer affordability with the need to ensure sustainable incomes for milk producers.

Why Karnataka Increased Nandini Milk Prices

The Karnataka Cabinet approved an increase of Rs 8 per litre in Nandini milk prices on October 29, with the revised rates coming into effect on November 1. The price of basic toned milk, previously sold at Rs 46 per litre, increased to Rs 54.

Under the revised arrangement, Rs 7 of the additional Rs 8 per litre is intended to go directly to dairy farmers, while the remaining Re 1 will be allocated to milk unions to meet operational expenses such as transportation and packaging.

The decision followed demands from milk producers and cooperative organisations for higher procurement prices. Farmers and milk unions had cited increasing costs of cattle feed, fodder, veterinary medicines, labour and other inputs as reasons for seeking a revision.

The government also pointed to the financial pressures faced by dairy farmers amid drought conditions and a decline in milk procurement. Officials had said that the price revision was necessary to prevent farmers from facing further losses and to ensure that milk production remained economically viable.

The increase was lower than the Rs 10 per litre revision initially sought by some dairy farmer representatives and milk cooperatives. The Cabinet settled on an Rs 8 increase after discussions over the interests of producers, cooperative institutions and consumers.

Shivakumar Challenges Critics Over Amul Milk Prices

Defending the decision, Shivakumar questioned whether Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje and other critics fully understood the challenges involved in dairy farming. He referred to the daily work required to rear cattle, arrange fodder, purchase medicines and maintain animals.

He argued that dairy farmers should receive compensation that reflects the time, labour and expenses involved in milk production. According to him, Karnataka’s producers were not receiving returns comparable to those available to suppliers associated with Amul.

His comparison with Amul was central to his defence of the price revision. By referring to the Rs 61-62 per litre figure, Shivakumar sought to highlight the difference in the rates he cited for Amul-linked milk producers and the amount he said Karnataka farmers were receiving.

He then challenged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to reduce Amul’s milk price, saying Karnataka would also consider lowering its rates if that happened. The remark turned the discussion from a state-level price increase into a broader comparison of dairy procurement and pricing across cooperative brands.

However, the comparison requires a distinction between the price consumers pay at retail outlets and the procurement price paid to farmers. These are not necessarily the same. Retail prices also account for processing, packaging, transportation, distribution and other operating costs.

Milk Prices in Karnataka Compared With Other States

Shivakumar also argued that milk prices in most states were higher than those in Karnataka, even after the latest revision. The government had previously defended the increase by comparing Nandini’s revised prices with rates charged for milk in other parts of the country.

Figures presented during the price-hike discussions showed that toned Nandini milk would cost Rs 54 per litre after November 1. Comparable prices cited for other markets included Rs 59 in Delhi and Maharashtra, Rs 57 in Gujarat, Rs 56 in Rajasthan and Kerala, and Rs 64 in Telangana.

These comparisons formed part of the government’s argument that Karnataka’s milk prices remained relatively competitive despite the increase. However, prices can vary depending on the milk variant, fat content, packaging and local cooperative pricing arrangements. A comparison is meaningful only when similar products and pricing categories are considered.

For consumers, the immediate impact of the revision is higher household spending on milk. For dairy farmers, the government says the larger share of the increase will improve procurement returns and provide additional income to families dependent on milk production.

Shobha Karandlaje’s Protest and Opposition to the Price Revision

The Nandini price increase drew criticism from opposition leaders, including Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje. Her protest became a point of contention during Shivakumar’s remarks at the Cooperative Week event.

The disagreement reflects a familiar challenge for governments managing essential food prices. An increase can improve the income of producers and help cooperatives cover rising costs, but it also places an additional burden on households that depend on milk as a daily staple.

Milk is a regular purchase for many families, making even a modest per-litre increase noticeable over a month. Households with children, elderly members or larger families may be particularly sensitive to changes in the price of everyday dairy products.

At the same time, keeping retail prices low without improving payments to farmers can put pressure on milk procurement and cooperative finances. Karnataka’s government has argued that the revision was intended to address this imbalance rather than simply increase the revenue collected from consumers.

25 Lakh Farmers Associated With Milk Cooperatives in Karnataka

Shivakumar highlighted the scale of Karnataka’s dairy cooperative network, saying around 25 lakh farmers were members of milk producers’ cooperative societies across the state. These societies collect milk from producers and supply it to a large section of Karnataka’s population.

The cooperative system plays an important role in connecting rural milk producers with organised markets. By collecting milk through local societies, the network gives farmers a channel to sell their produce and receive payments without having to depend entirely on individual buyers.

The government is also providing incentives to milk producers under existing support programmes. Shivakumar referred to the Ksheeradhare scheme, under which eligible milk producers receive an incentive of Rs 5 per litre.

Such incentives are intended to supplement farmers’ earnings and strengthen the economic position of dairy households. The government has argued that a combination of better procurement prices and financial support is necessary to sustain milk production.

Cooperative Institutions at the Centre of Karnataka’s Farmer Support Strategy

Shivakumar made the remarks while inaugurating the 73rd Cooperative Week-2026, organised by the Karnataka State Cooperative Federation in Bengaluru on Saturday. He described cooperative institutions as the backbone of farmers’ livelihoods and said the government would continue supporting the sector.

He said cooperatives were important not only for dairy farming but also for agricultural credit, rural businesses, sugar production and other economic activities. According to him, these institutions help farmers access financial services and markets that may otherwise be difficult to reach.

District Central Cooperative (DCC) banks and Primary Land Development (PLD) banks were among the institutions he identified as important sources of credit. They help farmers arrange funds for agricultural operations, seeds, fertilisers and other expenses, particularly when obtaining loans from nationalised banks is difficult.

Shivakumar said cooperative institutions had also supported agricultural and rural development by helping establish sugar factories, regulate vegetable prices and create markets for sugarcane. He called for strengthening the institutions so they could continue supporting farmers and ordinary households.

He also highlighted the government’s financial support through cooperative lending programmes. Nearly 17 lakh farmers were benefiting from interest-free crop loans under the crop loan and interest subsidy scheme, he said, while the government had provided Rs 1,135 crore in various forms for the programme.

Negaaliyogi and Teak Siri Programmes for Rural Livelihoods

Alongside the dairy price issue, Shivakumar referred to two programmes aimed at supporting agricultural livelihoods and rural economic activity: Negaaliyogi and Teak Siri.

He said the Negaaliyogi programme had been introduced in response to changes in agricultural practices, including a declining cattle population and growing dependence on tractors. The initiative is intended to support agricultural livelihoods amid these changes.

He also referred to the Teak Siri programme, which has been launched to encourage tree cultivation in rural areas. Promoting tree cultivation can form part of efforts to diversify rural income sources and encourage long-term agricultural and environmental activity.

The announcements formed part of the broader message Shivakumar delivered at Cooperative Week: rural prosperity depends on institutions that can provide farmers with financial support, market access and opportunities beyond traditional crop cultivation.

What the Nandini Price Hike Means for Farmers and Consumers

The revised Nandini rates highlight the competing interests involved in India’s dairy economy. Farmers need payments that cover production costs and provide a reasonable income, while consumers want access to affordable milk. Cooperative organisations must also cover the costs of collecting, processing, packaging and distributing the product.

For dairy farmers, the Karnataka government’s decision is intended to improve returns by directing most of the additional amount towards milk producers. The Rs 5-per-litre incentive under the Ksheeradhare scheme provides another layer of support for eligible producers.

For consumers, however, the increase means paying more for a product purchased regularly by households. The impact may extend beyond milk if prices of related dairy products are also revised to reflect changes in procurement and operating costs.

The debate also raises questions about how cooperative brands should balance farmer welfare and consumer affordability. Comparisons between Nandini and Amul can highlight differences in pricing, but the financial arrangements behind procurement, incentives and retail distribution need to be considered separately.

Shivakumar’s statement that Karnataka would reduce prices if the Prime Minister lowered Amul’s rates was a political challenge directed at the Centre. His broader defence, however, rested on the argument that farmers should not be expected to absorb rising production costs while selling milk at rates that leave them with inadequate returns.

The effectiveness of the revision will ultimately depend on whether the additional payments reach milk producers as intended and whether the cooperative system can maintain reliable supplies without placing an excessive burden on consumers.