PM-RKVY is a cafeteria your state designs, and the Agriculture Infrastructure Fund is a ₹1-lakh-crore loan facility with 125% priority-sector weightage. Your state wins the sanctions; what it hasn't built is the audit spine that designs the optimal state plan, drives AIF uptake, and certifies the spend.
The number that should worry an agriculture secretary isn't the allocation - it's the collapse between a cafeteria you could design fully and the components you actually draw. RKVY and AIF tell the story:
Every cafeteria component you don't design in, and every AIF rupee you don't mobilise, is agri capital your neighbour captures instead. The state plan is the lever - and it is a solvable, recoverable gap.
We grade each department on a four-level scale - Mature, Fragmented, Emerging, Policy-light - because the right intervention depends on where you already are.
State agriculture departments draw PM-KISAN and core RKVY reliably. What's missing is the connective tissue: a cafeteria state plan that captures every eligible component, AIF loan-facility mobilisation, and disciplined convergence of irrigation, credit and storage. The right intervention is a plan-design upgrade, not capability-building from scratch. We enhance your machinery; we never replace it.
One deliverable, built for your state, that your agriculture secretary can hand to a deputy secretary and act on the same week. Five components:
Every scheme you can draw on - PM-RKVY (cafeteria), Krishonnati Yojana, AIF, PM-KISAN - with your released-vs-available position and the share rules that govern each.
Every sanction at risk of lapsing, litigation or re-appropriation this year - ranked by recoverable value and the deadline to act, so nothing quietly slips back to the Centre.
Every recommended action passed through five gates - continuity, instrument & burden, absorption, conditionality & audit-survivability, timing - so you only chase what you can absorb and certify.
The utilisation-certificate and documentation position that unlocks the next tranche - mapped against exactly what a CAG performance audit looks for.
Each recommendation tied to a named source - the district, the scheme line, the pendency figure, the owner and the deadline. Zero generic filler.
From the day a proposal is drafted to the day a CAG auditor asks a question, every transition writes a verifiable record - who decided, on what criteria, against which milestone, with what proof of utilisation. The pipeline becomes auditable end-to-end, not just at the point of release.
The same discipline that governs a well-run grant jury governs every recommendation we make - so the output holds up when it's questioned.
Where official figures differ, the conflict is recorded openly and the lower Tier-1 value adopted; the disputed figure is held back, never quietly used.
An independence firewall and an open conflict register - declared up front, auditable after the fact.
Every figure time-stamped and attributable to a named source; nothing rests on memory or undocumented assertion.
Tier-1 (Parliamentary, budget, CAG) over Tier-2 (dashboards, agency reports). Lower tiers corroborate, never carry a claim.
Cycle times are measured continuously, surfacing the bottleneck instead of estimating it annually.
DPDP Act 2023 aligned, minimal personal data; your data stays yours, and the deliverables are licensed to the Government.
This is how a finding looks - sourced, gated, owner-assigned, and stamped with a release certificate. Sensitive specifics are redacted here; your report carries your department's real figures.
Of the eligible RKVY components, are unclaimed in - a capture gap, with the state-share match and district action plans holding the central release.
AIF drawdown in sits at of the eligible pipeline despite the 125% PSL weightage. A lender-and-FPO mobilisation plan lifts uptake before …
Illustrative. A real report is customized to your department, district clusters and current-year figures.
We measure auditable process integrity, never sanctioning decisions that sit with the Centre. Four layers, tracked continuously:
DPR completeness · land & clearance readiness · documentation
Eligibility-match accuracy · submission-window timeliness · UC clearance rate
Submitted → shortlisted → sanctioned - tracked as odds, never promised
Release-against-sanction · utilisation % · completion (department-owned)
Before this engine ever recommends chasing a rupee, the opportunity clears five gates. It's why the output survives an audit instead of becoming a liability.
Is the scheme live, funded and continuing - or sunsetting? No chasing money about to disappear.
Grant, loan or incentive? What state share and recurring burden does drawing it actually create?
Can the department spend and certify it in time, given current capacity? Absorption is the real constraint.
What conditions and UCs gate the release - and will the spend survive a CAG review?
What is the window, and the deadline to act, before the money lapses or re-appropriates?
The engine doesn't add to your reporting burden - it converts the burden you already carry into captured funds and a cleaner audit position.
Sanctions at risk of re-appropriation become a ranked, deadline-bound action list - recovered before the year closes.
Every action is pre-mapped to what a CAG performance audit looks for - you act and document in the same motion.
A captured-funds and certified-utilisation story the Chief Minister can see - and your department can stand behind.
Nothing is contingent on a sanction outcome. The Government commits only to a small, fixed first step and decides each subsequent stage on demonstrated value.
A fixed-scope audit of every live agriculture sanction, the UC-pendency map, and a ranked completion-at-risk list with remediation paths.
Build the evidence-chained DPR template, the eligibility matrix and the submission-sanction-utilisation tracker, piloted on 2-3 priority assets.
Operate a delivery office for the priority cohort - drive completion and UC closure within scheme deadlines.
Extend the operating system across the department's full agriculture portfolio - only after proof.
We ask for a 25-minute hearing of the concept, and the nomination of an operating owner for a Stage-0 diagnostic should the Government wish to proceed. Because central funds are gated by both the spending department and Finance, two offices are best engaged together - as co-owners, not in sequence.
Gates the 40% state match for RKVY and the credit-guarantee posture for AIF, plus PFMS fund-flow timing. Engaged first where the budget sits.
Owns the cafeteria state plan, the district action plans and AIF mobilisation - the office that converts available components into certified spend.
Tier 1 = Parliamentary replies, budget documents, CAG reports, official policy. Tier 2 = ministry dashboards and agency reports. Where sources conflict, the lower Tier-1 value is adopted and the conflict recorded.
| Claim | Value | Source & date | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| PM-RKVY + KY proposed outlay | ₹1,01,321.61 cr | Union Budget / scheme guidelines | 1 |
| PM-KISAN allocation, FY2026-27 | ₹63,500 cr | Union Budget 2026-27 | 1 |
| RKVY allocation, FY2026-27 | ₹8,550 cr | Union Budget 2026-27 | 1 |
| AIF priority-sector weightage | 125% | AIF scheme guidelines | 1 |
| PM-KISAN farmers Aadhaar-unseeded | ~30 lakh (6 Feb 2026) | Ministry of Agriculture | 1 |
| Active Kisan Credit Cards | 7.7 cr (₹10.2 lakh cr outstanding) | Ministry of Agriculture, Mar 2025 | 2 |
A blueprint capture report for your state: a per-scheme entitlement and utilisation map across PM-RKVY, Krishonnati Yojana, the AIF and PM-KISAN; a completion-at-risk register; five-gate capture-risk gating; and a utilisation-certificate and audit-readiness pack your officers can act on and defend.
No. We are independent and non-lobbying. We never guarantee a sanction, never charge a fee contingent on a grant, and never claim influence over central decisions. We strengthen the pipeline; your department acts on it.
Yes. The engine is built on the ministry's FY2026-27 figures and documented gaps, sourced to PRS, Union Budget documents, ministry dashboards and CAG reports - the same sources your own staff would cite. The full Evidence Ledger is on this page.
With a 25-minute confidential briefing and the nomination of an operating owner. The only commitment that follows, if you choose, is a fixed-scope 30-day Stage-0 diagnostic. Nothing is contingent on a sanction.
A 25-minute confidential briefing. We'll come back with one specific, sourced agriculture-fund capture opportunity for your state - no obligation, no slide-ware.