Assessment of knowledge about the Kisan Credit Card scheme among beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers in Kannauj District of Uttar Pradesh

Introduction

Agriculture plays a vital role in the Indian economy and provides livelihood to a large proportion of the population. The increasing use of improved technologies, high-yielding varieties, fertilizers, irrigation and improved agronomic practices has also increased farmers' requirement for production credit. However, inadequate and delayed access to formal credit continues to constrain agricultural activities, particularly among small and marginal farmers. Dependence on informal sources may expose farmers to high interest rates and exploitative lending conditions. Therefore, strengthening institutional credit is important for ensuring timely and adequate financial support for agricultural production (Singh and Sekhon, 2005) [11] . In this context, the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Scheme was introduced during 1998-99 by the Government of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). The scheme was developed to simplify the delivery of shortterm credit for crop cultivation and allied activities and to provide farmers with timely, adequate and hassle-free institutional credit. Its revolving credit facility allows farmers to make withdrawals and repayments within the sanctioned limit according to their agricultural requirements. Thus, KCC represents an important mechanism for improving farmers' access to institutional finance and reducing dependence on non-institutional sources (NABARD, 2001; Kallur and More, 2002) [6,2] . The effectiveness of such a credit mechanism, depends not only on its availability but also on farmers' understanding of its provisions and procedures. Knowledge regarding eligibility, credit limits, repayment, insurance coverage and other facilities can help farmers make appropriate use of the scheme. Earlier studies have reported varying levels of knowledge about KCC, with Gole (2013) [1] , Malviya (2017) [4] and Valamannavar (2017) [13] reporting differences in the distribution of farmers across low, medium and high knowledge categories. Furthermore, assessing knowledge among both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries is important because access to the scheme may itself be associated with greater interaction with banking institutions and sources of agricultural information. Murmu et al., (2019) [5] , found a clear difference in the distribution of KCC knowledge between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Despite the expansion of KCC, inadequate awareness, procedural difficulties and unequal access continue to affect its effective outreach. Therefore, determining the level of knowledge among beneficiaries as well as non-beneficiaries can help identify the extent to which farmers understand the scheme and reveal areas requiring greater awareness creation and extension support. Such comparison is particularly relevant for identifying knowledge gaps that may influence participation and effective utilization of institutional credit. www.extensionjournal.com Accordingly, the present study was undertaken to determine and compare the knowledge of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries about the Kisan Credit Card Scheme in Kannauj district of Uttar Pradesh.

Material and Methods

The present study was conducted to determine the knowledge of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries about the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Scheme. An ex post facto and descriptive research design was adopted for the study. The study was conducted in Kannauj district of Uttar Pradesh. From the selected district, Chhibramau and Gugrapur blocks were selected for the study. A total of 316 respondents, comprising 158 KCC beneficiaries and 158 non-beneficiaries, were selected for assessing and comparing their knowledge about the KCC Scheme. The knowledge of respondents regarding the KCC Scheme was assessed using a structured interview schedule comprising 16 knowledge components related to important provisions and facilities available under the scheme. The components covered awareness of the KCC Scheme, eligibility criteria, full form of KCC, credit limit, interest rate, loan repayment period, tenure limit, crop insurance coverage, personal insurance coverage, working capital provision for maintenance of farm assets and allied activities, issuance of smart/debit cards, mobile-based transactions, restrictions on debits and credits, margin/security waiver limits, repayment requirement within 12 months, and loan rescheduling in case of crop damage due to natural calamities. For each knowledge component, respondents were classified into full knowledge, partial knowledge and no knowledge categories. The responses obtained for the individual components were used to assess the overall knowledge level of the respondents. The cumulative knowledge score ranged from 0 to 48, and respondents were categorized into three levels: low knowledge (up to 16 score), medium knowledge (17-32 score), and high knowledge (33-48 score). Primary data were collected from the selected beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries through a structured interview schedule. The responses were coded, tabulated and analyzed using frequency and percentage to describe the knowledge of respondents regarding each KCC component and their overall knowledge level. The results were expressed in terms of frequency and percentage for each knowledge category and component.

Results and Discussion:

The knowledge of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding the KCC Scheme was assessed across 16 components and classified into full, partial and no knowledge, with the findings presented in Tables 1 and2. As presented in Table 4.21, among beneficiaries, 109 respondents (68.99%) had full knowledge about the KCC Scheme, 42 (26.58%) had partial knowledge and 7 (4.43%) had no knowledge. In comparison, Table 2 shows that among non-beneficiaries, 56 respondents (35.44%) had full knowledge, 84 (53.16%) had partial knowledge and 18 (11.39%) had no knowledge. Thus, full knowledge was considerably higher among beneficiaries, whereas partial and no knowledge were more evident among non-beneficiaries. The comparatively higher awareness among beneficiaries may reasonably be associated with their direct exposure to the KCC system and institutional credit delivery. Since beneficiaries have obtained the facility, they are more likely to encounter information concerning the scheme during the process of obtaining and operating KCC. In contrast, nonbeneficiaries may have had fewer opportunities for direct interaction with the formal credit system.

Knowledge of eligibility criteria

Regarding eligibility criteria for availing KCC, 76 beneficiaries (48.10%) possessed full knowledge, 73 (46.20%) had partial knowledge and 9 (5.70%) had no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, 72 respondents (45.57%) had full knowledge, 70 (44.30%) partial knowledge and 16 (10.13%) no knowledge. Thus, the two groups showed a relatively similar proportion with full knowledge, although the proportion with no knowledge was higher among nonbeneficiaries. The substantial proportion with partial knowledge in both groups suggests that knowing about the existence of KCC does not necessarily imply complete understanding of its eligibility provisions. This may be particularly relevant because eligibility requirements can involve specific conditions and documentation.

Knowledge of the full form of KCC

With respect to the full form of KCC, 103 beneficiaries (65.19%) had full knowledge, 49 (31.01%) had partial knowledge and 6 (3.80%) had no knowledge. Among nonbeneficiaries, only 59 respondents (37.34%) had full knowledge, whereas 84 (53.16%) had partial knowledge and 15 (9.49%) had no knowledge. The difference indicates substantially greater familiarity with the basic identity of the scheme among beneficiaries. This pattern is understandable because beneficiaries have direct experience with the scheme, whereas non-beneficiaries may possess only general or indirect information. The finding also indicates that awareness campaigns among nonbeneficiaries need to communicate even the basic features of KCC in a simple and understandable manner.

Knowledge of credit limit of smart card

For the credit limit of the smart card, 74 beneficiaries (46.84%) had full knowledge, 76 (48.10%) had partial knowledge and 8 (5.06%) had no knowledge. Among nonbeneficiaries, 52 respondents (32.91%) had full knowledge, 90 (56.96%) had partial knowledge and 16 (10.13%) had no knowledge. Thus, partial knowledge was predominant among both groups, with a comparatively higher proportion among non-beneficiaries. The relatively lower proportion of respondents with full knowledge suggests that complete understanding of credit-limit provisions was limited, particularly among non-beneficiaries. This may be due to the comparatively technical nature of credit-limit provisions, which require farmers to understand the basis and conditions under which the credit limit is determined. Consequently, farmers may be aware of KCC as a source of institutional credit but may not have complete knowledge of its specific financial provisions.

Knowledge of interest rate

Regarding the interest rate applicable to KCC, 76 beneficiaries (48.10%) had full knowledge, 78 (49.37%) partial knowledge and 4 (2.53%) no knowledge. Among nonbeneficiaries, 67 (42.41%) possessed full knowledge, 82 www.extensionjournal.com (51.90%) partial knowledge and 9 (5.70%) no knowledge. Partial knowledge was therefore the dominant category in both groups. The predominance of partial knowledge may reflect the difficulty of understanding the financial conditions associated with agricultural credit, particularly when different provisions or repayment conditions influence the effective cost of borrowing. Singh, (2006) [11] reported that farmers preferred KCC because of advantages including low interest rates, timely disbursal, insurance benefits and repayment flexibility; however, procedural complexities and limited financial literacy continued to hinder broader participation.

Knowledge of loan repayment period

Concerning the loan repayment period, 72 beneficiaries (45.56%) had full knowledge, 77 (48.73%) partial knowledge and 9 (5.71%) no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, 54 (34.18%) had full knowledge, 91 (57.59%) partial knowledge and 13 (8.23%) no knowledge. Hence, the proportion having full knowledge was higher among beneficiaries, while partial and no knowledge were relatively higher among nonbeneficiaries. The predominance of partial knowledge in both groups indicates that many farmers were aware of the repayment requirement but lacked complete understanding of the specific repayment period. This may be attributed to limited familiarity with the detailed terms and conditions associated with KCC repayment. Such incomplete knowledge may affect farmers' ability to plan repayment appropriately and make effective use of the credit facility.

Knowledge of tenure limit of KCC scheme

For the tenure limit, 75 beneficiaries (47.47%) had full knowledge, 79 (50.00%) partial knowledge and 4 (2.53%) no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, 72 (45.57%) had full knowledge, 73 (46.20%) partial knowledge and 13 (8.23%) no knowledge. Thus, partial knowledge was the largest category among beneficiaries, whereas the proportions of full and partial knowledge were nearly similar among nonbeneficiaries. The result indicates that tenure-related provisions were not completely understood by a considerable proportion of either group. This may be because tenure provisions involve more specific operational information than general awareness of KCC. Regular communication by banking institutions could therefore help farmers understand the validity and renewal-related provisions more clearly.

Knowledge of crop insurance coverage:

Knowledge of crop insurance coverage was comparatively better among beneficiaries. 94 beneficiaries (59.49%) had full knowledge, 58 (36.71%) partial knowledge and 6 (3.80%) no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, 63 respondents (39.87%) had full knowledge, 78 (49.37%) partial knowledge and 17 (10.76%) no knowledge. Thus, beneficiaries showed better knowledge, possibly due to their direct exposure to KCC-related services and information, while the higher partial knowledge among non-beneficiaries indicates scope for strengthening awareness about crop insurance provisions.

Knowledge of personal insurance coverage

Regarding personal insurance coverage under KCC, 85 beneficiaries (53.80%) had full knowledge, 64 (40.51%) partial knowledge and 9 (5.70%) no knowledge. Among nonbeneficiaries, 58 (36.71%) had full knowledge, 85 (53.80%) partial knowledge and 15 (9.49%) no knowledge. Therefore, beneficiaries again showed a higher proportion of full knowledge. The difference may similarly reflect greater exposure of beneficiaries to KCC-related information. However, the considerable proportion of partial knowledge among both groups indicates that awareness of the existence of insurance benefits may not necessarily mean complete understanding of their coverage and provisions.

Knowledge of working capital provision

For working capital provision for maintenance of farm assets and allied activities, 78 beneficiaries (49.37%) had full knowledge, 74 (46.83%) partial knowledge and 6 (3.80%) no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, 69 (43.67%) had full knowledge, 73 (46.20%) partial knowledge and 16 (10.13%) no knowledge. The relatively balanced distribution between full and partial knowledge indicates that this provision was understood to some extent but was not completely clear to many respondents. This may be because working-capital provisions cover purposes beyond the immediate purchase of crop inputs and therefore require a broader understanding of the scope of KCC. Sharma, (2016) [9] emphasized the operational potential of KCC to provide timely and flexible credit, making awareness of its different uses important for effective utilization.

Knowledge of issuance of smart/debit card

Concerning issuance of smart/debit cards, 94 beneficiaries (59.49%) had full knowledge, 56 (35.44%) partial knowledge and 8 (5.06%) no knowledge. In contrast, among nonbeneficiaries, only 51 (32.28%) had full knowledge, while 94 (59.49%) had partial knowledge and 13 (8.23%) had no knowledge. The higher full knowledge among beneficiaries may reasonably be linked with their direct exposure to the card-based operation of the scheme. Non-beneficiaries, lacking direct experience with the facility, may be more dependent on indirect sources of information. This pattern is consistent with the broader thesis observation that improved awareness and institutional linkages are important for expanding KCC outreach.

Knowledge of mobile-based transactions

Regarding mobile-based transactions at agricultural input dealers and mandies, 75 beneficiaries (47.47%) had full knowledge, 78 (49.37%) partial knowledge and 5 (3.16%) no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, 64 (40.51%) had full knowledge, 82 (51.90%) partial knowledge and 12 (7.59%) no knowledge. Thus, partial knowledge was predominant in both groups, while beneficiaries had a higher proportion of full knowledge. This may be due to greater exposure of beneficiaries to KCC-related transaction facilities, whereas the higher partial knowledge among non-beneficiaries indicates limited familiarity with such facilities.

Knowledge of restrictions on number of debits and credits

For restrictions on the number of debits and credits, 83 beneficiaries (52.53%) had full knowledge, 70 (44.30%) partial knowledge and 5 (3.16%) no knowledge. Among nonbeneficiaries, 64 (40.51%) had full knowledge, 82 (51.90%) www.extensionjournal.com partial knowledge and 12 (7.59%) no knowledge. The higher full knowledge among beneficiaries again suggests that direct experience with KCC operations may facilitate understanding of transaction conditions. Nevertheless, the large partial-knowledge group among non-beneficiaries indicates scope for clearer dissemination of operational information before farmers enter the formal credit system.

Knowledge of margin/security waiver limits

With regard to bank limits for waiver of margin/security requirements, 75 beneficiaries (47.47%) had full knowledge, 76 (48.10%) partial knowledge and 7 (4.43%) no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, only 56 (35.44%) had full knowledge, whereas 87 (55.06%) had partial knowledge and 15 (9.49%) had no knowledge. This was one of the components where partial knowledge was particularly prominent. The technical nature of margin and security provisions may make them difficult for farmers to understand without direct explanation from bank personnel. The finding is relevant to the thesis observation that procedural complexity can restrict effective access to KCC. Kumar et al. (2023) [3] similarly reported that low awareness restricted the effectiveness of the scheme and suggested greater awareness through extension services and simplified procedures.

Knowledge of repayment requirement within 12 months

For repayment within 12 months, 86 beneficiaries (54.43%) had full knowledge, 66 (41.77%) partial knowledge and 6 (3.80%) no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, 67 (42.41%) had full knowledge, 77 (48.73%) partial knowledge and 14 (8.86%) no knowledge. The higher full knowledge among beneficiaries may be related to their direct experience with repayment requirements. Knowledge of repayment is particularly important because timely repayment forms an essential part of responsible institutional credit use. Shekhar, (2025) [10] noted repayment flexibility as one of the advantages influencing farmers' preference for KCC, while procedural complexity and limited financial literacy remained barriers to wider participation.

Knowledge of loan rescheduling during natural calamities

Regarding loan rescheduling in case of crop damage due to natural calamities, 82 beneficiaries (51.90%) had full knowledge, 70 (44.30%) partial knowledge and 6 (3.80%) no knowledge. Among non-beneficiaries, 60 (37.97%) had full knowledge, 84 (53.16%) partial knowledge and 14 (8.86%) no knowledge. Thus, beneficiaries had comparatively higher full knowledge, whereas partial and no knowledge were higher among non-beneficiaries. The higher knowledge among beneficiaries may be attributed to their direct exposure to KCC provisions and greater interaction with institutional credit agencies. The predominance of partial knowledge among non-beneficiaries indicates that the provision of loan rescheduling during crop damage was not fully understood by many farmers, highlighting the need for clearer dissemination of information regarding such riskmanagement provisions.

Overall knowledge level

The overall knowledge level was categorized into low, medium and high on the basis of cumulative scores. As shown in Table 3, among beneficiaries, 7 respondents (4.43%) belonged to the low-knowledge category, 109 (68.99%) to the medium-knowledge category and 42 (26.58%) to the high-knowledge category. Among nonbeneficiaries, 55 respondents (34.81%) were in the lowknowledge category, 96 (60.76%) in the medium category and only 7 (4.43%) in the high-knowledge category. The corresponding distribution is illustrated in Fig. 1. The results show a clear descriptive difference in the distribution of knowledge between the two groups. Beneficiaries were predominantly concentrated in the medium and high categories, whereas non-beneficiaries had a much larger representation in the low-knowledge category and a much smaller representation in the high-knowledge category. Importantly, however, the largest category for both groups was medium knowledge, indicating that complete mastery of KCC provisions was not widespread even among beneficiaries. The present findings are broadly consistent with earlier studies. Gole (2013) [1] , Malviya (2017) [4] and Valamannavar (2017) [13] reported medium knowledge as a prominent category among farmers regarding KCC. The beneficiarynon-beneficiary pattern closely agrees with Murmu et al., (2019) [13] , who reported comparatively higher knowledge among beneficiaries and greater concentration of nonbeneficiaries in the low-knowledge category. Reddy et al. (2026) [8] highlighted limited awareness as a constraint to effective KCC participation, while Panchal and Patange, (2026) [7] , reported procedural complexity and limited financial literacy as barriers. The present findings therefore emphasize the need for focused awareness efforts covering KCC provisions, particularly among non-beneficiaries, while continued information support is also required for beneficiaries.

Conclusion:

The study revealed that beneficiaries possessed comparatively better knowledge of the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Scheme than non-beneficiaries. Among beneficiaries, the majority belonged to the medium knowledge category, followed by the high knowledge category, whereas nonbeneficiaries were predominantly in the medium category with a comparatively larger proportion having low knowledge. Beneficiaries also showed greater full knowledge of several important KCC provisions, including scheme awareness, crop and personal insurance, smart/debit cards, repayment and rescheduling facilities. However, partial knowledge remained prominent for several technical and financial provisions in both groups. Therefore, focused awareness and information dissemination are needed to strengthen farmers' understanding of KCC provisions.

References

1. Gole A. A study on repayment behavior of Kisan Credit Card users of Panagar block of Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh [master's thesis]. Gwalior: Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya; 2013. Available from: http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/72832
2. Kallur MS, More SS. Performance of Kisan Credit Card Scheme in Karnataka. Financing Agriculture. 2002;34(4):7-12.
3. Kumar A, Sonkar VK, Aditya KS. Assessing the impact of lending through Kisan Credit Cards in rural India: evidence from Eastern India. The European Journal of Development Research. 2023;35(3):602-622.
4. Malviya A. A study on repayment behaviour of Kisan Credit Card users of Shajapur Block Shajapur District Madhya Pradesh [master's thesis]. Gwalior: Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya; 2017. Available from: http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810030863
5. Murmu B, Bose DK, Jahanara. Knowledge of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries about Kisan Credit Card Scheme in Deoghar Block of Deoghar District, Jharkhand, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(6):435-442.
6. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. Report on evaluation of Kisan Credit Card scheme. Mumbai: National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development; 2001.
7. Panchal SK, Patange SS. A critical study of crop pattern and financial resource utilisation among tribal farmers in Maharashtra. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories. 2026:1576-1586.
8. Reddy BR, Vahoniya DR, Bagda B, Kumari K. Kisan Credit Card Scheme in India: growth, utilisation patterns, impact and implementation constraints. Journal of Economics, Management and Trade. 2026;32(4):196209.
9. Sharma MP. Comprehensive study of Kisan Credit Card at Central Bank of India A useful credit tool for rural development. IBMRD's Journal of Management & Research. 2016;5(1):21-29.
10. Shekhar C. Assessing the economic impact of the Kisan Credit Card Scheme on farmers' income and prosperity: a case study of Ballia District, Uttar Pradesh. SSRN. 2025;5360300.
11. Singh H, Sekhon MK. Cash-in benefits of the Kisan Credit Card scheme: onus is upon the farmer. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2005;60(3):320-331.
12. Singh IJ. Performance of Kisan Credit Card scheme in Haryana. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2006;61(3):390-391.
13. Valamannavar S, Saha A, Dhakre DS. A study on knowledge and opinion of the farmers regarding KCC scheme in Dharwad district of Karnataka. International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research. 2018;8(6):25-32.