National One Health Mission Assembly and Calls For Unified Response to Future Health Threats

A Missed Opportunity for Action: The 2025 National One Health Mission Assembly

On 21 November 2025, the National One Health Mission Assembly convened under the Department of Health Research (DHR), bringing together stakeholders from health, agriculture, environment, and wildlife sectors. Framed around the theme “One Earth, One Health, One Future,” the event aimed to showcase India’s readiness for integrated health governance. Participants applauded India’s leadership role, yet the critical questions of institutional preparedness and resource allocation loomed large. What the headlines skipped was the persistent gap between vision and execution in India’s health security landscape.

Not Just Another Conference: Why the Assembly Matters

This Assembly is notable because India stands at the crossroads of health governance. With a livestock population of over 535 million, a human population nearing 1.5 billion, and diverse wildlife systems, India exemplifies the risk factors that demand a One Health approach. Issues such as zoonotic diseases—COVID-19, Lumpy Skin Disease, Avian Influenza—and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) have made clear the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

Unlike previous fragmented responses, the National One Health Mission provides the legislative umbrella to harmonize efforts across ministries. It builds on the 2021 proposal for institutionalized coordination to prevent zoonotic outbreaks. However, the effectiveness of this mission lies not in themes or rhetoric but in how much structural and financial support it receives—and how it gains traction at the state level.

The Institutional Machinery: Constructive But Fragmented

The One Health mission operates under the legal framework provided by the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and builds on India's existing health ecosystem through programs like Ayushman Bharat and Mission Indradhanush. DHR, alongside the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare and the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, carries the baton of coordination. Yet the challenge remains in weaving together these siloed departments into actionable on-ground partnerships.

For instance, India’s launch of 15 BSL-3 laboratories, backed by the recently issued SOP Compendium, marks progress in high-containment laboratory safety. However, these labs are concentrated in urban hubs, leaving rural-dominant zoonotic hotspots underserviced. Similarly, telemedicine platforms like eSanjeevani have expanded reach but often exclude populations in remote tribal belts, where mobile connectivity and awareness levels are abysmal.

Additionally, while antimicrobial resistance surveillance exists, it is led primarily by academic institutions like AIIMS rather than an integrated government-led framework. This patchwork reveals a troubling dependency on external agencies rather than institutional infrastructure built for nationwide resilience.

Dissecting the Data: Reality vs Aspirations

India’s spending on public health continues to hover around 1.3% of GDP, far below comparable economies. Despite announcements targeting comprehensive zoonotic disease surveillance, the allocation for animal health and disease prevention under the National Livestock Mission stood at a mere ₹3,000 crore in FY2025. This is dwarfed by the needs of states like Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, where high human-animal interaction zones demand intensive allocation.

An analysis of outbreaks over the last decade exposes the inefficiency of fragmented data collection. For instance, the absence of uniform health dashboards linking rural veterinary hospitals with primary health centers means key zoonotic data is often lost. Recent reports suggest that nearly 40% of zoonotic disease spillovers globally occur in South Asia, yet India lacks a predictive modeling system akin to South Korea’s MOH-CDC Smart Disease Forecast Program. In the absence of technological foresight, outbreaks like Lumpy Skin Disease earlier this year overwhelmed state systems.

The Unasked Questions: Structural Constraints in Execution

The Assembly’s declarations of cohesive action fail to address systemic weaknesses in India’s health governance. An outstanding question is India’s federal structure: health is a state subject under the Constitution, but zoonotic diseases demand centralized coordination cutting across state lines. How will this tension be resolved without undermining state autonomy?

Another critical gap lies in financing. The National One Health Mission’s funding is expected to supplement departmental budgets rather than create independent channels. Will this mechanism suffice to fund rural surveillance, international technology transfers, and capacity-building? The lessons from India’s fragmented COVID-19 vaccine rollout suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, the ecological dimension raises concerns of regulatory capture. Policies focusing on biodiversity protection often clash with agribusiness-driven animal farming, where zoonotic risks are highest. Without sectoral accountability and enforcement, One Health risks becoming another top-heavy initiative.

Looking Abroad: India’s Learning Curve Compared to South Korea

A pointed comparison is South Korea, which in 2018 faced zoonotic threats from the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus. The Korean government integrated its Smart Disease Forecast Program with local governance, ensuring real-time data collection from farming units and hospitals. This led to efficient outbreak prediction with nearly 80% accuracy. India lacks such predictive analytics, especially in high-risk zones. South Korea’s investment in AI-based surveillance systems illustrates a proactive, rather than reactive, approach. India could leverage indigenous tech innovation through platforms like C-DAC to close this gap.

Prelims Practice Questions

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions