The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026, has brought the fiscal relationship between the Union and mineral-producing States back into focus. The Act, which came into force on 22 August 2026, restricts State governments from imposing taxes, cesses or other levies on mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands except under conditions or restrictions prescribed by the Central Government. While the Union government argues that the change will bring greater certainty to the mining sector, concerns remain about its implications for the fiscal powers of mineral-producing States.
For Odisha, the debate goes beyond the distribution of mineral revenues between governments. It also raises a question that deserves greater attention: what does mineral wealth leave behind for the people living in the regions from which it is extracted?
The Odisha Economic Survey 2025–26 reports that the State accounted for 43.7 per cent of India's total value of major mineral production in 2024–25. The value of production increased from ₹30,044 crore in 2020–21 to ₹64,785 crore in 2024–25. Odisha also accounted for 55 per cent of India's iron ore production and the entire reported production of chromite. Mining and quarrying contributed 9.5 per cent to the State's gross state value added in 2025–26, according to advance estimates.
These figures show the importance of mining to Odisha's economy. But mineral abundance does not necessarily translate into secure livelihoods for people living in mining regions.
The Odisha Migration Study, reported in December 2025, estimated around 28.16 lakh current migrants and 7.4 lakh return migrants across the State. Keonjhar, one of Odisha's major mineral-producing districts, had an estimated 1.19 lakh current migrants, while Sundargarh had around 46,000.
These numbers should be interpreted carefully. They do not suggest that mining causes migration or that everyone leaving these districts is compelled to do so by economic distress. People migrate for different reasons, and migration itself can open up new opportunities. Nevertheless, the figures invite us to look beyond mineral production and examine the livelihood choices available to people in these regions.
My ethnographic fieldwork and household surveys in Ramgarh district of Jharkhand offered an opportunity to observe how workers move between mining regions and other labour markets. During fieldwork, I encountered a Hyva truck driver who had migrated from the Ramgarh region to Badbil in Odisha, an important mining centre. He was not employed in mineral extraction itself. His work involved transporting minerals, an activity closely connected with the mining economy.
His experience illustrates how mining creates employment beyond the mines. Transport and other supporting activities attract workers from neighbouring regions. At the same time, people from mineral-producing districts may move to cities such as Bengaluru, Chennai or Hyderabad in search of occupations, wages or working conditions they consider more attractive.
But access to employment elsewhere is not equally available to everyone. My fieldwork showed that migration often depended on relationships established by earlier migrants. A relative, neighbour or someone from the same community could provide information about work, introduce a newcomer to a contractor or help arrange accommodation.
These relationships were frequently shaped by caste, kinship and community networks. Over time, they also influenced the occupations that workers entered. People from particular villages or communities became concentrated in activities such as centering, bar bending and welding. Newcomers often began as helpers and learned through observation, assistance and everyday participation in work.
Such experiences point to an important distinction between geographical mobility and occupational mobility. Travelling hundreds of kilometres for employment does not necessarily improve a worker's position in the labour market. Some remain in low-paid and insecure jobs, while others acquire skills that allow them to move into better-paid occupations or find employment with different contractors.
Migration can therefore become a means of acquiring occupational knowledge, but the opportunities to learn and advance are unevenly distributed. The networks that help workers enter an occupation may also influence the kind of work they can access and how far they can progress.
The vulnerability associated with such employment became particularly visible during the COVID-19 lockdown. The Hyva driver I encountered struggled to return home when transport and economic activity came to a halt. Eventually, his family had to arrange and pay for a vehicle to bring him back. His experience revealed how a livelihood dependent on mobility could become precarious when the economic activity supporting it suddenly stopped.
These observations matter for how we understand development in mineral-producing regions. Migration should not automatically be regarded as a failure of local development. For many households, it is a way to improve earnings, acquire skills and support family members. Equally, the presence of mines cannot guarantee that local residents will find the occupations or working conditions they seek.
The challenge is to ensure that mineral wealth creates opportunities that extend beyond extraction itself.
The District Mineral Foundation (DMF) provides one institutional route for addressing this challenge. DMFs receive statutory contributions from mining leaseholders to support people and areas affected by mining-related operations. However, the benefits of such expenditure cannot be assessed only through the amount of money collected or spent.
Investments in education, infrastructure, skills and local enterprises could have lasting value if they expand people's livelihood choices. Training that enables workers to find employment across different industries and locations, for example, may prove more useful in the long run than training tied to a particular mine or contractor. Similarly, supporting local enterprises could help diversify economic activity in regions heavily dependent on extraction.
This matters because mineral resources are finite. Even a highly productive mining region cannot assume that extraction will continue indefinitely at its present scale. The period during which minerals generate substantial revenue is also an opportunity to build the foundations of a more diversified local economy.
The debate over the MMDR Amendment Act is important for Odisha's fiscal interests. But the distribution of mineral revenue between governments is only one part of the development question. For communities living in mining regions, what matters equally is whether that wealth creates skills, livelihoods and economic opportunities that endure.
Odisha's mineral wealth has generated considerable economic value. Its longer-term contribution, however, will depend on what remains after the minerals have been removed.
---
Dr Ajit Kumar Babu is Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, School of Social Sciences, M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru
Comments