PM Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana Completes One Year in 100 Districts

The correct answer is 100. The scheme works in 100 Aspirational Agricultural Districts, and these were identified using three indicators: low productivity, low cropping intensity and low disbursement of agricultural credit. The share of net cropped area and of operational holdings in each State and Union Territory was also taken into account, and the design ensures that every State has at least one district in the list. All 100 districts have prepared District Action Plans, all of them submitted output indicator data up to August 2026, and all submitted outcome indicator data for 2025-26. Option A, 75, option C, 150, and option D, 250, do not match the number of districts named for the scheme. Candidates should also recall that progress across these districts is ranked every month on the PM-DDKY dashboard, and that the average score across the six objectives improved from 18.85 in April 2026 to 46.89 in August 2026.

The correct answer is the Union Minister for Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. The scheme runs on a three-tier structure. At the district level, the District Dhan Dhaanya Krishi Yojana Samiti, headed by the District Collector or District Magistrate, prepares and implements the District Action Plan. At the State level, the State Dhan Dhaanya Krishi Yojana Samiti, headed by the Chief Secretary, reviews and monitors those district plans. At the national level two committees oversee the scheme: the National Executive Committee under the Union Agriculture Minister, and the National Monitoring Committee under the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Option C names the head of the National Monitoring Committee, not the Executive Committee, which makes it the most tempting distractor. Option A is wrong because the Prime Minister launched the scheme but does not head this committee, and option D is wrong because NITI Aayog hosts the dashboard rather than chairing the committee.

The correct answer is 46.89. The average score of the 100 districts across the six objectives of the scheme stood at 18.85 in April 2026 and reached 46.89 in August 2026, which is an improvement of 28.04 points over those months. Option A, 18.85, is the April 2026 figure and not the August one, so it tests whether a candidate has read the direction of the change. Option B, 28.04, is the size of the improvement rather than the score itself, a classic trap in data questions. Option D does not appear in the review at all. The objective-wise gains over the same period are worth noting as well: productivity moved from 1.50 to 8.08, crop diversification from 4.08 to 10.18, post-harvest storage from 2.14 to 5.19, irrigation from 1.38 to 4.91, credit access from 2.40 to 6.53, and governance and service delivery from 7.41 to 12.05.

The correct answer is low productivity, low cropping intensity and low agricultural credit disbursement. These three measures were used to pick the districts, after which the share of net cropped area and of operational holdings in each State and Union Territory was also considered so that the spread remained fair, with at least one district per State. Option B names rainfall, soil quality and farm size, which are familiar agricultural variables but not the selection criteria here. Option C lists general development indicators of the kind used for other aspirational programmes, not for this scheme. Option D names market and trade measures that the scheme seeks to improve rather than measures used for selection. Candidates should link the criteria to the scheme design: because the chosen districts were weak in yield, cropping intensity and credit, the plans converge 36 Central schemes of 11 Ministries and Departments to close exactly those gaps.