Jharkhand has the greatest mineral wealth – and great poverty. It’s an administrative failure

It was this contradiction that prompted the Government of India to establish the District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT) in 2015. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had argued that mining-affected communities bear the greatest social and environmental costs of extraction but receive the least share of its benefits. DMFT sought to correct this imbalance by ensuring that a portion of mining revenues was reinvested in the welfare of those living in mining-affected areas. The idea was simple: If minerals belonged to the nation, the people who sacrificed the most because of mining deserved to benefit first from the wealth it generated. Unfortunately, that promise remains largely unfulfilled.

The failure is not financial; it is administrative.

I recently travelled through West Singhbhum, including the Saranda mining belt, and witnessed first-hand the widening gap between the district’s immense mineral wealth and the condition of its people. West Singhbhum, home to some of India’s richest iron ore reserves, should have been a model of inclusive development. Between 2016 and 2026, nearly Rs 3,700 crore accumulated under its DMFT. Such resources could have transformed Saranda and surrounding mining villages through better hospitals, schools, drinking water systems, roads and livelihood programmes. Instead, what I saw were struggling local markets, shrinking economic activity, unemployed youth and communities asking a simple question: Where has the money gone?

The DMFT Rules require every district to make annual reports, budgets, approved works, project progress, governing council decisions, and beneficiary details publicly available. These are not optional disclosures but statutory safeguards intended to ensure transparency and public accountability. Yet, across Jharkhand, these disclosures are either missing, outdated or inaccessible. In West Singhbhum, annual reports, budgets and project details are unavailable, while the district’s DMFT website has remained largely dormant for years. Mining-affected communities, for whom the fund was created, have little means of knowing how thousands of crores collected in their name have actually been spent.

My visit to Saranda reinforced this reality. Jamda, once a bustling mining township, today reflects economic stagnation. Local traders spoke of declining incomes and shrinking purchasing power. Several mining leases expired years ago without timely renewal or fresh auction. As mines shut down, employment disappeared. The effects spread far beyond mine workers. Transport operators lost business, roadside eateries emptied, shops struggled to survive, and young people increasingly migrated in search of work.

Cross the border into Barbil in neighbouring Odisha, barely 20 kilometres away, and the contrast is striking. The geology is identical. The mineral deposits are the same. What differs is governance.
Odisha ensured timely auctions after mining leases expired. New operators quickly resumed production. Mining activity expanded, employment increased, local markets flourished, and government revenues surged. Jharkhand hesitated.

The consequences are visible in the numbers. Since 2019-20, India has auctioned 434 mineral blocks. Odisha auctioned 45, Chhattisgarh 41, while Jharkhand auctioned only three, despite being the country’s richest mineral-bearing state. The production gap is equally revealing. Between 2018-19 and 2024-25, Odisha’s iron ore production increased from around 120 million tonnes to nearly 180 million tonnes. Jharkhand’s production remained almost unchanged at approximately 23 million tonnes.

Revenue tells an even more compelling story. Jharkhand possesses nearly 40 per cent of India’s mineral resources, while Odisha has roughly 17 per cent. Yet in 2025-26, Odisha generated nearly Rs 46,000 crore in mining revenue compared with Jharkhand’s Rs 22,000 crore. A state endowed with more than twice the mineral wealth earns less than half the mining revenue of its neighbour. That cannot be explained by geology. It reflects policy choices and administrative efficiency.

These failures are interconnected. Delayed auctions reduce production. Lower production means lower royalty collections. Lower royalties translate into reduced contributions to DMFT. Mining-affected villages receive fewer resources precisely because the mining economy itself has been allowed to stagnate. The debate around DMFT, therefore, is not merely about financial accounting; it is about restoring trust.

The purpose of the Foundation was never to create another government fund. It was to ensure that communities living amidst dust, displacement and environmental degradation finally became partners in the prosperity generated beneath their feet. Without transparency, that objective becomes impossible to achieve.

Jharkhand does not suffer from a shortage of mineral wealth. It suffers from delayed decisions, weak implementation and inadequate transparency.

Before organising new investment summits or announcing ambitious industrial plans, the state must first demonstrate that it can effectively manage the resources it already possesses. Timely mine auctions, faster lease renewals, revival of stalled projects and complete public disclosure of every rupee spent under DMFT would send a far stronger message than any investment roadshow.

The tragedy of Jharkhand is not that minerals continue to leave its soil. It is that prosperity still does not reach the people living above them.

Until that changes, the District Mineral Foundation Trust will remain a reminder not of inclusive development but of a promise made to Jharkhand’s mining communities that has yet to be fulfilled.

The writer is Jharkhand’s first Chief Minister and currently the Leader of the Opposition in the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly