the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in 1999–2000 followed by the introduction of the Weather-Based

Crop Insurance Scheme in 2007–08 and subsequently the Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in

2010–11. Except for WBCIS which was the only index-based insurance scheme all other programs operated on

an indemnity-based model. Moreover, these schemes adopted an area-based approach rather than an individual-

based one. In line with the “One Nation – One Scheme” concept, the Government of India launched the Pradhan

Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) as its flagship crop insurance program. The primary objective of PMFBY

is to provide financial support to farmers in the event of crop loss caused by pests, diseases, hailstorms, droughts,

or floods. Under this model, farmers pay a nominal premium, while the central and state governments share the

remaining subsidy. PMFBY offers comprehensive coverage for a wide range of crops across all stages of the

crop cycle from pre-sowing to post-harvest losses. Administered by agricultural insurance companies, the

Agriculture continues to be the backbone of rural livelihoods in India, yet farmers remain highly vulnerable to

climatic shocks such as droughts, floods, pest attacks, and extreme weather. This vulnerability has intensified

due to climate change, making agricultural risk management increasingly vital. Crop insurance serves as a

critical safety net by stabilizing farm income, reducing yield uncertainty, and supporting long-term investment

decisions.

India has experimented with multiple crop insurance models—ranging from the Comprehensive Crop Insurance

Scheme (1985–86) to the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (1999–2000), Weather-Based Crop Insurance

cycles, and improve claim settlement through streamlined processes. However, despite its policy relevance,

PMFBY’s impact remains varied across states, and existing literature highlights gaps in awareness, enrolment,

claim settlement timelines, and the participation of small and marginal farmers.

The present study addresses these gaps by examining interstate variations in PMFBY implementation and

identifying the determinants influencing benefit realization.

Ruchbah Rai (2019) examined The Indian economy's core sector is still agriculture. Only 16 percent of the

Rohtas & Vandana Sheoran (2024) studied that the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) has emerged

as a crucial initiative to provide financial protection to farmers against such risks. In Haryana, PMFBY has been

instrumental in extending this protection and ensuring prompt settlement of claims. A total of 600 households

from Haryana, comprising both 300 insured and 300 non-insured farmers in equal proportion were selected to

acquire primary data. The data collection utilized the stratified random sampling technique to ensure

representation across diverse segments within the farming community. The research found that the disparities

in awareness levels between insured and non-insured farmers across various risk categories and crops in districts

like Kaithal, Hisar, and Jhajjar and also the survey revealed that insured farmers generally exhibit higher

awareness levels, emphasizing the need for targeted education programs for non-insured farmers to bridge the

(65.83%) towards PMFBY. The study emphasized the importance of awareness and knowledge about the

benefits and conditions of the PMFBY scheme in shaping Farmers favourable attitudes towards it.

Darshan et al. (2021) explored the level of knowledge among farmers regarding the government scheme Pradhan

Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) in Tumkur district of Karnataka, India. The study selects 120 farmer

beneficiaries of PMFBY using random sampling techniques and collects data through structured interviews. The

research revealed that comprehensive knowledge of the scheme and insurance coverage against natural disasters

can greatly benefit farmers. It also emphasizes the need for timely and complete information on PMFBY to be

provided by extension personnel working at the grassroots level.

revamping is grounded and well planned to make an impact in the crop insurance arena. However, the increase

in awareness activities is highly necessary to increase the cover of farmers and to stabilise the numbers.

The present study is based on secondary data collected from 17 states of India for the period 2016–2020. The

required data were compiled from the official website of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY),

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India (https://pmfby.gov.in/). The analytical tools

The Cost–Benefit Analysis was used to evaluate the financial efficiency of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima

Yojana by comparing the cost incurred with the benefit gained. It measures the extent to which benefits are

Here, Benefit refers to the claims paid, and Cost represents the insurance coverage or premium paid under the

PMFBY. As per the PMFBY analytical framework, the Cost–Benefit Analysis typically covers the period 2019–

discriminate between two or more naturally occurring groups. In this study, discriminant analysis was employed

to identify the key factors contributing to interstate variations in the implementation and performance of the

The data collected and simply represented in the form of diagrams and charts; interpretation of the data is also

-2546.63

implementation of the Crop Insurance Scheme, accounting for 55.26 percent of the total variation. This is

by a Mahalanobis D² value of 0.856. The canonical correlation was found to be 2.94, and the corresponding chi-

square value of 0.715 confirmed that the two groups differed significant.

both crop loss incidence and the effectiveness of PMFBY implementation. States such as Maharashtra, Madhya

Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Karnataka consistently exhibit high volumes of reported and settled claims. This trend

reflects not only their extensive agricultural areas and high levels of farmer participation, but also their recurrent

exposure to climatic shocks—including droughts, unseasonal rainfall, and pest outbreaks—which trigger

frequent indemnity payouts. Conversely, states like Goa, Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala show considerably lower

claim values, which may be attributed to their smaller insured areas, limited crop diversity, and relatively stable

agro-climatic conditions. These contrasts highlight the uneven vulnerability profile across regions as well as

constraints—previously highlighted in CAG reports and policy evaluations—pose a significant challenge to

realizing PMFBY’s objective of providing prompt financial relief to farmers. The pattern of farmer applications

and area insured also indicates differences in scheme outreach and awareness. States with high enrolment, such

as Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, tend to have stronger institutional mechanisms, higher historical exposure

to risk, and greater familiarity with insurance programs. In contrast, states with persistently low enrolment reflect

limited insurance literacy, weaker extension services, and lower penetration among small and marginal farmers.

This raises concerns regarding the inclusivity of PMFBY, as regions with low awareness may also be those most

vulnerable to climatic disturbances. The cost–benefit analysis reinforces these disparities. States like Himachal

Pradesh and West Bengal display relatively higher benefit ratios due to the concentration of losses among a

smaller insured population, while agriculturally intensive states such as Gujarat and Haryana show lower ratios,

capacity, awareness levels, and the institutional readiness of states to implement large-scale insurance

mechanisms. Overall, the results indicate that while PMFBY has achieved significant reach and has provided

substantial financial support to farmers in high-risk states, its performance remains uneven across regions.

Enhancing claim settlement efficiency, improving transparency in loss assessment, expanding awareness—

particularly among small and marginal farmers—and strengthening state-level institutional mechanisms are

essential to improving the scheme’s uniformity and effectiveness.

settlement, regional inequalities, low awareness among small and marginal farmers, and limited transparency—

continue to constrain its impact. Strengthening digital monitoring, increasing institutional capacity, expanding

awareness programs, and enhancing accountability mechanisms are essential to improving the scheme’s

efficiency and inclusiveness. With appropriate reforms, PMFBY can evolve into a robust instrument for securing

farmer livelihoods and enhancing agricultural resilience in India.