A turning point for PM KISAN

The release of the twenty first instalment of the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi is far more than a routine financial transfer. It is a statement of intent at a critical moment for Indian agriculture, when rising fertiliser prices, volatile markets, and erratic weather patterns are reshaping rural risk. By disbursing `18,000 crore directly to nearly nine crore farmers on 19 November 2025 through the Direct Benefit Transfer system, the government has demonstrated once again that administrative delay need not stand in the way of support. Efficient technology led implementation, when combined with political will, can become the backbone of policy delivery.

Since its inception in 2019, PM KISAN has transferred more than `3.70 lakh crore to over 11 crore farmer families, putting it on the global map as one of the largest income support schemes in operation. Giving credit where it is due, this consistency in disbursement is an achievement. The strength of the scheme lies in its dependability rather than the size of the assistance. For farmers operating on less than two hectares of land, liquidity at the right moment determines whether sowing proceeds on time or is postponed. The `6,000 annual assistance may not transform livelihoods, but it functions as a dependable buffer that reduces reliance on informal lenders and sustains participation in agriculture.

Importantly, the twenty first instalment carries a focused mandate for calamity affected states. This is both sensible and necessary in an era where climate risk has moved from abstract threat to economic reality. Farmers in Maharashtra, parts of eastern India, and coastal districts have seen fluctuating rainfall, dry spells, and cyclone related damage. Recognising this pattern deserves appreciation, but the next step must be a more structured framework to link assistance with verified local damage. Compensation will only be effective when it is timely, proportionate, and based on transparent assessment.

PM KISAN’s administrative success owes much to its digital foundation. The integration of Aadhaar, Jan Dhan accounts, and mobile connectivity has allowed the scheme to avoid the traditional bureaucratic layers that once slowed rural welfare. Aadhaar based e KYC and digitised land records have given farmers the ability to register, verify, and track their own benefits. More than five lakh Common Service Centres and post office outlets have helped bridge the digital gap for those without access to smartphones and internet services. Here the state deserves praise, not for announcing entitlements, but for building delivery systems that actually reach people.

Equally significant is the shift from passive reception to active engagement. The introduction of the Kisan eMitra AI chatbot and the PM KISAN mobile app marks an important cultural change. More than 95 lakh queries have reportedly been resolved across 11 major languages, indicating that farmers are increasingly confident about seeking information and accountability. The next natural step should be to expand beyond grievance redressal. With India’s growing digital infrastructure, predictive advisory services on weather, fertilisers, pest management, and market trends could be integrated into PM KISAN to provide real time planning support rather than solely monetary relief.

There is also evidence of corrective action on eligibility. The recovery of more than `400 crore from ineligible beneficiaries, while modest in proportion to the total disbursement, suggests that monitoring mechanisms are active. Yet vigilance must be matched by fairness. Excluding genuine farmers due to clerical errors, disputed land records, or incomplete documentation can undermine public confidence. This is where the newly launched Farmer Registry could become an important tool, reducing duplication, simplifying access, and ensuring that legitimate beneficiaries are not left behind.

As PM KISAN enters a more mature stage, three policy priorities merit attention. First, integration. The scheme should not operate in isolation but as part of a wider agricultural support ecosystem. Linking it with crop insurance, soil health data, and climate adaptation programmes could create a more coherent structure. The integration of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies through a common ERP platform is a step in this direction and could allow these bodies to evolve into hubs for credit, advisory services, and post harvest operations.

Second, flexibility. A uniform assistance amount assumes uniform costs. A farmer cultivating millets in a water scarce district faces different realities from one growing wheat in Punjab. Over time, a calibrated assistance model tied to local crop economics may be more equitable. Pilots could be tested at the state level without disrupting the core structure of PM KISAN.

Third, climate resilience. Agricultural volatility is rising, and schemes must adapt accordingly. A contingency top up linked automatically to officially recorded weather events could reduce distress without requiring repeated administrative approvals. Linking part of the instalment to sustainable farming practices such as micro irrigation or organic inputs may also encourage long term resilience. Caution is warranted, but the direction is sound.

Transparency and monitoring will be crucial for credibility. Committees at district and state levels exist, but their work is not easily accessible to the public. A nationwide dashboard showing complaint resolution rates, inclusion statistics, and delay metrics could strengthen accountability without politicisation. This would allow farmer organisations, research institutions, and civil society groups to participate in policy improvement rather than debate through speculation.

Equally important is a shift in discourse. PM KISAN should not be reduced to a binary judgement of success or failure. It is a fiscal instrument designed to reduce income volatility in a sector that has little control over risk. Urban welfare programmes operate on similar logic. The rural economy requires the same degree of realism, without inflated expectations or premature criticism. That said, fiscal sustainability is a valid concern. As coverage expands, connections between income support and productivity may have to be strengthened to maintain value for public expenditure.

As India advances towards the vision of a Viksit Bharat, rural stability cannot remain peripheral. PM KISAN has shown that technology enabled support can be delivered with dignity and efficiency. Its next phase must focus on moving from relief to resilience. When income support arrives on time, planning improves. When advisory systems guide decisions, outcomes improve. And when farmers are treated as partners, participation improves.

The twenty first instalment should therefore be viewed not as a conclusion but as an inflection point. The foundation is strong. The direction is promising. What remains is the task of building a more adaptive, integrated, and future ready framework. Support has been delivered. The test now is whether it can be converted into security and strength. Rural India deserves both.

 The writer is an independent commentator on environment and development issues, with a particular interest in water, agriculture and sustainability challenges facing India