Examine the Centre-State institutional arrangement in implementing the Digital Agriculture Mission. What challenges could this federal model pose?

Agriculture being a State subject, the Digital Agriculture Mission — approved by the Cabinet in September 2024 with an outlay of Rs. 2,817 crore (central share Rs. 1,940 crore) [3] — is deliberately built as a federated arrangement: the Centre funds, designs standards and coordinates, while States create and hold the data.

The institutional arrangement

• Umbrella-scheme design: the Mission houses three Digital Public Infrastructures — AgriStack, Krishi Decision Support System and Soil Profile Mapping [3].
• MoU route: implementation proceeds through Centre–State MoUs; 19 States have signed with the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare [2].
• State custody of registries: the Farmers Registry, Geo-referenced Village Maps and Crop Sown Registry are created and maintained by State Governments/UTs, drawing on their land records [2].
• Apex coordination: the 5th National Conference of Chief Secretaries set action points — saturation of Farmer IDs, land geo-referencing and Digital Crop Survey completion — with AgriStack Commissionerates/Directorates and PMUs proposed for institutional sustainability [2].
• Outcome layer: over 10.18 crore Farmer IDs now anchor DBT across PM-Kisan, PMFBY, MSP procurement and credit [1].

Challenges of this federal model

• Asymmetric State capacity: uneven progress across States risks a digital divide in benefit delivery, since the Centre cannot compel registry creation [2].
• Land-record dependency: registries are only as accurate as State Records of Rights; stale RoRs exclude tenants, sharecroppers and women cultivators [2].
• Interoperability: differing State databases and standards complicate a uniform national stack [2].
• Data governance: linking Aadhaar, land and financial data across two levels of government raises consent, privacy and accountability questions [2].
• Sustainability: MoU-based, project-mode structures depend on continued central funding and dedicated State institutions [2][3].

Cooperative federalism, not central directive, is thus the operating logic of AgriStack. Strengthening State capacity through PMUs, dynamic linkage of registries with updated land records, and a clear consent-based data-protection framework can convert this federated design into inclusive, leakage-free delivery — advancing both farmer welfare and SDG-2 on zero hunger.