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

Q. Examine the Centre-State institutional arrangement in implementing the Digital Agriculture Mission. What challenges could this federal model pose? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

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.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. Progress in Generating Unique Digital Farmer IDs, PIB — 10.18 crore Farmer IDs; DBT linkage with PM-Kisan, PMFBY, MSP procurement, credit 2. Centre, States Align to Scale AgriStack Across Schemes and Services, PIB — 19 State MoUs; State-maintained registries; Chief Secretaries' action points; AgriStack Commissionerates/PMUs; RoR linkage 3. Cabinet approves the Digital Agriculture Mission with an outlay of Rs. 2817 Crore, PIB — September 2024 approval, outlay and central share; three DPIs; federated structure