Discuss the rationale behind income-support schemes for farmers as opposed to price-support/subsidy-based interventions. Evaluate PM-KISAN in this context.

Income support pays the cultivator a fixed, crop-neutral transfer; price support (MSP) and input subsidies instead work indirectly through markets and distort them. The Cabinet's approval of PM-KISAN's continuation to 2030-31 with a ₹3.15 lakh crore outlay [1] places this shift at the centre of farm policy.

Why income support over price/input subsidies

• Non-distortionary: MSP and fertiliser subsidies skew cropping towards water-intensive paddy-wheat and encourage nutrient imbalance; the Economic Survey noted only about 35% of fertiliser subsidy reaches small farmers [3].
• Equity: price support rewards marketable surplus, concentrating gains in large farmers of procurement-heavy states, whereas a per-family transfer covers all landholding sizes [1].
• Autonomy and credit: cash lets farmers choose their own input mix and reduces dependence on high-interest informal credit [1].
• Transparency: an on-budget DBT through Aadhaar-seeded accounts replaces opaque, open-ended subsidy bills [2]; decoupled support is also less trade-distorting under WTO norms.

Evaluating PM-KISAN Strengths

• Scale and delivery: over ₹4.47 lakh crore across 23 instalments; the 22nd instalment alone transferred ₹18,640 crore to 9.32 crore farmers [2].
• Inclusion: nearly one in four beneficiaries is a woman farmer, receiving over ₹1.06 lakh crore cumulatively [1].
• Predictability: five-year sanction aids multi-year fiscal planning rather than annual re-approval [1].

Limitations

• Adequacy: ₹6,000 a year is roughly ₹500 a month, unrevised since 2019 and modest against rising input costs.
• Exclusion: eligibility rests on land records, leaving out tenants, sharecroppers and landless labourers.
• Targeting errors: recovery drives against ineligible beneficiaries reflect verification gaps [4].

PM-KISAN validates income transfers as an efficient, equitable base of farm support, but it supplements rather than substitutes price, credit and insurance instruments. Indexing the amount, completing land-record digitisation and extending coverage to tenant cultivators would align it with the goal of doubling farm incomes and inclusive rural growth.