Discuss how the Aspirational Districts model of ranking and competition can be adapted for agriculture. What are its limitations?

The Aspirational Districts Programme (ADP) lifted lagging districts by joining up existing schemes and ranking districts in real time. UNDP recommended copying the model elsewhere [3]. The PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana (PMDDKY) was approved in July 2025 for 100 districts. It is the first attempt to apply this model to agriculture alone [2]. The approach is promising, but it needs changes that fit farming.

Adapting the Model to Agriculture

• Need-based selection: districts are chosen for low productivity, low cropping intensity and low credit disbursement [2].
• Convergence: 36 schemes of 11 Departments, State schemes and private partnerships feed into one district plan [2].
• District ownership: the District Dhan-Dhaanya Samiti, which includes progressive farmers, makes plans suited to local soil, rainfall and water [1].
• Competition: districts are ranked every month on 121 indicators. Gaya, Nagaur and Umaria topped Year 1 [1].
• Peer learning: Banka's natural-farming revival and Gadchiroli's drought-resilience work are shared as models for other districts [1].
• Cooperative federalism: every State gets at least one district, so every State has a stake [2].

Limitations

• ADP's weakest sector: UNDP found that agriculture and water improved only "to a certain extent", while health and education gained much more [3]. A NITI Aayog-hosted assessment flagged financial inclusion as needing more attention [4].
• Monthly rankings, seasonal results: yields change once a season and depend on the monsoon. Dependence on rain-fed farming keeps productivity low [5]. Monthly rankings may therefore reward activity (camps held, cards issued) more than real gains for farmers.
• Little new money: the scheme mostly reuses existing schemes [2]. The interest subvention scheme for farm credit stayed at ₹22,600 crore in both 2025-26 and 2026-27 [5]. So the credit target has no extra subsidy behind it.
• Diluted targeting: each State's share depends on its Net Cropped Area and operational holdings [2]. As a result, the 100 districts are not strictly the 100 most backward.
• Capacity gaps: UNDP said districts need dedicated fellows and technical support units [3].

Ranking can turn scattered schemes into accountable district action. For agriculture, the rankings should give more weight to seasonal outcomes like yield and cropping intensity. Banks should get district-level lending targets, and an independent baseline review should be done, as it was for the ADP. This would deliver the "visible and measurable outcomes" the Minister wants in Year 2 [1]. It would also advance SDG-2 and make development across regions fairer.