For more updates follow Grant Thornton Bharat on WhatsApp
Over the last ten years, overall farm mechanisation levels in India have increased from roughly 40–42 per cent in the mid‑2010s to about 47 per cent today. Operation‑wise estimates indicate mechanisation is strongest in seed‑bed preparation (70%), while sowing/planting (40%), weeding/interculture (33%), and harvesting/threshing (34%) lag translating to an overall average of 45–47% today. This progress, though meaningful, pales in comparison with countries such as China and Brazil, where mechanisation levels exceed 60–70 per cent. More importantly, India’s mechanisation remains heavily skewed toward tractors. Tractors account for nearly three‑quarters of mechanisation-related sales, while precision implements, crop‑specific machinery and water‑efficient cultivation technologies form a much smaller share of the market.
The numbers underscore this skew. Annual tractor sales have risen from around 620,000 units in 2015 to more than 1,200,000 units in 2025, making tractors both the backbone and the ceiling of India’s mechanisation narrative. At the same time, net sown area per tractor has fallen sharply, reflecting saturation rather than expansion of productive capability. Farmers continue to prioritise tractors because they are multi‑purpose, easily financed, and retain resale value. However, tractors alone do not address the current constraints facing Indian agriculture—declining groundwater tables, rising labour costs, input inefficiencies and yield variability.
The next phase of mechanisation growth must therefore begin at the field rather than at the showroom. Demand needs to be created around specific problems faced by farmers, not around equipment categories. The next productivity leap will be driven by conservation and precision systems that solve on‑field constraints like zero tillage, raised/permanent beds, mulch‑based systems, high‑density/precision horticulture, and climate‑resilient, stress‑adaptive farming. Technologies such as Direct Seeded Rice (DSR), laser land levelling, precision seed drills and AI‑enabled sprayers have already demonstrated the ability to reduce water usage, improve timeliness of operations and lower labour dependence, particularly in rice, wheat and cotton systems. Yet adoption remains limited because these technologies are introduced as standalone machines rather than as integrated production solutions.
DSR is a telling example. In water‑stressed rice‑growing states, DSR can cut water use by up to a quarter and substantially reduce labour requirements. But its success depends on a package of practices—precision land preparation, calibrated seeding, effective weed control and advisory support. When policy support and subsidies are structured around individual equipment purchases, farmers are left to assemble this system themselves, increasing perceived risk and limiting adoption. Budget 2026 needs to rebalance support away from isolated assets toward bundled, outcome‑linked mechanisation solutions that are demonstrated directly on farmers’ fields.
Technology has advanced rapidly over the past decade, aided significantly by the growing presence of international agri‑equipment manufacturers in India. Global players such as John Deere, CNH and Kubota, alongside domestic leaders, have introduced higher‑horsepower tractors, telematics, GPS‑enabled guidance systems and precision implements adapted for Indian conditions. These developments have raised equipment quality and expanded choice for farmers. However, they have also increased the complexity of decision‑making. Advanced machinery requires confidence in utilisation, access to advisory, and clarity on returns—conditions that many small and marginal farmers still lack.
This is where public policy must play a catalytic role. Budget 2026 should explicitly support field‑level demonstrations that link technology adoption to measurable outcomes such as water savings, cost reduction and yield stability. Demand generation must move beyond awareness campaigns to evidence creation at the village level, leveraging FPOs, cooperatives and custom hiring centres. When farmers see outcomes on comparable fields, adoption follows far more quickly than through price incentives alone.
Equally critical is the way government incentives are accessed. Despite substantial spending on farm mechanisation schemes like SMAM, MIDH etc, utilisation remains uneven, largely because access pathways are narrow and fragmented. The current dependence on Custom Hiring Centres as the primary interface for subsidy delivery does not reflect how farmers actually engage with the mechanisation ecosystem. Farmers interact far more frequently with equipment dealers, FPOs, cooperatives and agri‑retailers, yet these touchpoints are rarely empowered to facilitate incentive access.
A modernised incentive architecture must therefore be farmer‑centric rather than channel‑centric. Allowing multiple, trusted last‑mile institutions—such as FPOs, PACS, OEM dealerships and certified agri‑platforms—to facilitate subsidies would significantly reduce friction, improve uptake and align public spending with real purchase decisions. Importantly, incentives should be flexible enough to encourage shared ownership and custom hiring models, especially for high‑value precision equipment that is uneconomical for individual smallholders to own.
Over the past decade, India has succeeded in building a large and competitive farm machinery manufacturing base, supported by both domestic and international players. The challenge before Budget 2026 is to convert this industrial strength into on‑farm impact. That requires a shift from tractor‑led volume growth to solution‑led productivity gains, and from limited access points to a multi‑channel, farmer‑driven incentive system. If policy can bridge this gap, India’s farm mechanisation journey can move decisively from scale to efficiency, resilience and sustainability.
This article first appeared in The Hindu Business Line on 17 January 2026.
