Targeted intervention: Aiming at low-productivity districts to boost growth

The Prime Minister Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana (PM-DDKY), recently approved by the Union Cabinet, marks a shift in India’s agricultural policy — from blanket subsidies to targeted, district-level intervention. By focusing on at least one district per state with low productivity, low cropping intensity, and low credit disbursement, this scheme aims to target areas that have been left behind. It places strong emphasis on enhancing agricultural productivity through crop diversification, sustainable practices, improved post-harvest infrastructure and irrigation facilities, and better financial access. Backed by performance-based monitoring through 117 indicators, the scheme signals a clear intent for systemic reform.

 

Historically, India has experimented successfully with similar models. The Intensive Agriculture District Programme (IADP), launched in 1960, and later expanded as the Intensive Agriculture Area Programme (IAAP), brought subject-matter experts together at district level to drive coordinated intervention. It was within this very framework that high-yielding wheat varieties were introduced in 1966, paving the way for the Green Revolution. This demonstrates that district-led, integrated planning is not new but remains a proven template worth revitalising.

 

However, identifying the 100 “Dhan-Dhaanya” districts and designing 117 performance indicators are only the starting point. Given India’s agro-climatic and socio-economic diversity, success will depend on decentralised problem-solving and participatory governance. The formation of the “District Dhan Dhaanya Samiti” is a welcome move in this direction. It must ensure the inclusion of diverse local actors, such as panchayats, farmer-producer organisations (FPOs), women’s self-help groups (SHGs), agri-entrepreneurs, cooperatives, private players, and, above all, farmers, because their participation is indispensable for identifying ground-level bottlenecks, prioritising needs, and ensuring accountability. That said, the scheme’s design brings its own risks. It relies on the convergence of 36 existing schemes across 11 departments, an effort that, while conceptually sound, is in danger of getting mired in bureaucratic complexity. Additionally, the monthly tracking of 117 indicators across 100 districts, though data-driven in spirit, could become an administrative burden. Over-monitoring may shift focus towards box-ticking rather than tangible outcomes.

 

Besides, another vital dimension is the integration of climate resilience and natural-resource management into district-level planning. Many of the identified districts may overlap with regions vulnerable to erratic rainfall, soil degradation, and groundwater stress. A 2019 NITI Aayog report suggested a water-focused approach in framing state-level agricultural policies and incentives. The PM-DDKY must therefore embed climate-smart agriculture, such as drought-resistant crop varieties, precision irrigation, and agroforestry, within district plans. Strengthening local weather forecasting and promoting decentralised water budgeting can help future-proof these districts. Without climate adaptation as a core metric, short-term productivity gains may falter in the face of long-term environmental distress. To mitigate these risks, capacity-building must be prioritised. Targeting low-productivity districts will not only boost economic activity in some of the backward areas, but will help push overall growth.