Weighing Promise & Perils of PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana
Farmer with DAP Fertilizer! (Image X)
A glance at recent CAG performance (actually Outcome audits) audits on some of the 36 schemes proposed to be merged reveals a sobering pattern. Lofty goals often collided with executional inertia, poor data integrity, and fragmented accountability.
By P SESH KUMAR
In the heart of India’s agrarian belt, where every drop of water, every grain of wheat, and every pulse of policy holds the key to survival, the Union Cabinet has greenlit what may be one of the most ambitious rural interventions in recent years—the PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana.
Approved on July 16, 2025, with a bold ₹24,000 crore annual outlay over a six-year span, the scheme will initially target 100 districts and claims it will touch the lives of 1.7 crore farmers across the country.
At first glance, the scheme sounds like a well-stirred potion of good intentions. It pledges to converge 36 ongoing central schemes under one umbrella—no mean administrative feat. From irrigation expansion to post-harvest infrastructure, from encouraging crop diversification to pushing for climate-smart and sustainable agricultural practices, the scheme tries to be all things to all farmers. It promises improved storage facilities, better water management, and a productivity push that could potentially help farmers leapfrog into a new era of profitability and resilience.
The rationale behind the scheme is solid. Indian agriculture continues to grapple with twin crises—ecological degradation and economic stagnation. Over-dependence on water-guzzling crops like paddy and sugarcane has led to the exhaustion of groundwater aquifers in states like Punjab, Haryana, and Maharashtra. At the same time, climate volatility, falling commodity prices, and fragmented land holdings have left farmers disillusioned and indebted. The PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana, by focusing on crop diversification and sustainability, seems to be a policy antidote to this long-standing malaise.
The Constitutional Puzzle: Agriculture as a State Subject
However, beneath this well-crafted blueprint lies a thorny constitutional dilemma—agriculture is a State subject under Entry 14 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. This means states are not just stakeholders but primary actors in agricultural policy. The Centre may fund, suggest, or incentivize—but states ultimately decide the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘where’ of agricultural transformation.
This poses a practical challenge to the implementation of the Dhan-Dhaanya scheme. What happens when the Centre pushes for millet promotion, but a state government has locked-in contracts with rice procurement agencies? Or when a centrally designed crop calendar clashes with a state’s traditional sowing patterns and agro-climatic practices?
The scheme’s success will hinge on state-level buy-in, and that will not come merely by sending funds. It will require co-creation—joint district planning, state-specific cropping strategies, data-sharing agreements, and most importantly, political alignment. The Centre must treat states not as passive recipients but as active architects, and offer them genuine fiscal and operational flexibility. Otherwise, the scheme may trigger friction instead of reform.
Furthermore, some states—especially those ruled by non-NDA parties—may view this massive scheme as a political encroachment or repackaging of existing state efforts, thereby resisting full-scale implementation. The key to resolving this lies in transparent performance metrics, equal representation in steering committees, and clear demarcation of roles in monitoring and evaluation processes.
Lessons from the Past: What the CAG Said
A glance at recent CAG performance (actually Outcome audits) audits on some of the 36 schemes proposed to be merged reveals a sobering pattern. Lofty goals often collided with executional inertia, poor data integrity, and fragmented accountability.
Take the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)—a flagship irrigation programme now slated for merger. The CAG’s 2021 audit report found glaring discrepancies in physical progress, with multiple states reporting irrigation potential created without verifying actual usage or productivity gains. Some irrigation projects remained incomplete for over a decade, while others saw massive time and cost overruns due to poor inter-departmental coordination between central and state agencies.
The Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY), aimed at promoting organic farming, was critiqued for inadequate follow-up, lack of certification for organically grown produce, and limited market linkage—leading to poor uptake by farmers despite awareness drives and subsidies.
Similarly, the audit of Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) revealed that in several states, projects were chosen without proper need assessment, monitoring frameworks were weak or non-existent, and outcomes remained undocumented. Funds were either parked in state treasury accounts or diverted to activities not permissible under scheme guidelines.
Even the much-hyped e-NAM (electronic National Agricultural Market) platform—designed to break the grip of middlemen—saw limited success. CAG pointed out that many mandis lacked basic internet infrastructure, and farmers continued to sell outside the platform due to trust and familiarity issues. Most importantly, inter-state trading—a key objective—remained a pipe dream.
These findings from the CAG’s truncated performance audits, are not just bureaucratic nitpicks—they are early warning signs. If unaddressed, the same issues of scheme silos, fudged performance data, weak inter-agency convergence, and poor end-use monitoring could torpedo the PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana before it takes root.
The Real Test: Independent Evaluation or Bureaucratic Box-Ticking?
If ₹24,000 crore a year is being spent, the nation deserves to know: Did soil fertility improve? Did water tables rise? Did farmer incomes go up? Did the carbon footprint of agriculture come down? Were women and marginal farmers better integrated into formal markets?
These cannot be answered through quarterly reviews chaired by secretaries or dashboards updated by district officials. India needs an independent third-party impact assessment agency, preferably a consortium of agricultural universities, retired CAG officers, NABARD, and civil society experts. Only such a body can ensure the scheme doesn’t suffer the fate of its predecessors—of being judged not by impact but by spreadsheets.
Way Forward:
To prevent this green revolution from turning into a bureaucratic mirage, the government must urgently focus on five critical fronts. First, forge true Centre–State partnerships, not top-down instructions. Second, establish a National Agri-Monitoring Council with independent oversight powers. Third, mandate annual social audits and publish disaggregated outcome data at district levels. Fourth, re-engineer the agriculture extension system, putting trained professionals in the field and not just on Zoom. And finally, trust farmers as partners—not just as beneficiaries—by giving them a voice in scheme design, monitoring, and feedback loops.
Only then will “Dhan” and “Dhaanya” flow not just on paper but into the hands of India’s real nation-builders—her farmers.
(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
