Komal Gupta
Director-Strategy and Policy, Coop Talks & Founder, Konsult Komal
Context and Significance of the Review Meeting
The two-day National Level Workshop and Review Meeting on Strengthening the Cooperative Sector, convened in Udaipur, Rajasthan, on 8 and 9 January 2026, marked a pivotal milestone in India’s cooperative reform process. Organised by the Ministry of Cooperation, the meeting functioned as a structured review of implementation progress across states and union territories within the Sahkar se Samriddhi framework, moving beyond a routine consultative exercise.
The Udaipur meeting was distinguished by its explicit focus on implementation review, setting it apart from previous sectoral consultations. The agenda advanced beyond vision setting to critically assess how recent policy initiatives are effecting institutional change at the operational level. This shift indicates a broader recognition that the success of cooperative reform in India now depends more on execution quality, institutional capacity, and governance discipline than on policy intent alone.
Senior officials from both central and state governments, including Secretaries and Registrars of Cooperative Societies, participated in the meeting, with notable contributions from Dr Ashish Kumar Bhutani, IAS, Secretary, Ministry of Cooperation; Kapil Meena, IAS, Director; and Anand Kumar Jha, Joint Secretary. The involvement of national training and capacity-building institutions such as LBSNAA, Tribhuvan Sahkari University, NCCT, and VAMNICOM underscored the comprehensive institutional scope of the reform agenda.
The subsequent sections present key policy highlights and governance signals that emerged from the national review meeting, reflecting the priorities and implementation focus of India’s ongoing cooperative reform agenda.
National Cooperative Database
One of the most significant reform initiatives reviewed at Udaipur was the development of the National Cooperative Database. While often described as a data consolidation exercise, the database holds substantial policy significance.
Historically, India’s cooperative sector has been marked by fragmented information, limited transparency, and inadequate visibility into institutional health. The absence of a unified, verified database has impeded evidence-based policymaking, regulatory oversight, and the formulation of targeted reforms. The National Cooperative Database represents a shift toward recognising data as essential governance infrastructure, rather than a secondary administrative concern.
From a policy perspective, the database enables several structural changes. It allows regulators and policymakers to assess the distribution, scale, and functional diversity of cooperatives across states. Additionally, the database supports risk-based supervision, particularly in cooperative banking and credit institutions, and establishes a foundation for integrating cooperatives with digital public infrastructure, financial systems, and targeted capacity-building initiatives.
Discussions at Udaipur indicated that the success of this initiative depends not only on data collection, but also on ensuring data integrity, regular updates, and institutional ownership at the state level. Without these elements, the database risks remaining static and failing to achieve transformative impact.
Computerisation of PACS and RCS Offices
The computerisation of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, Agricultural and Rural Development Banks, and Registrar of Cooperative Societies offices emerged as a central topic during the review. Notably, discussions framed computerisation as a structural reform instrument, rather than simply a technological upgrade.
For decades, PACS have operated with limited transparency, manual record-keeping, and insufficient integration with formal financial systems. These limitations have constrained their ability to scale, diversify activities, and manage risk. The review recognised that digital systems are essential for redefining PACS as credible, accountable, and multifunctional institutions.
From a policy perspective, computerisation enables real-time monitoring of financial health, enhances auditability, and facilitates integration with national platforms such as payment systems and procurement portals. It also reduces discretionary practices and opacity, both of which have historically undermined effective governance.
However, the review discussions also highlighted a significant risk: uneven digital adoption across states. Without sustained investment in digital capacity building, process reengineering, and change management, computerisation could exacerbate, rather than mitigate, institutional disparities.
PACS as Multi-Functional Economic Units
A central theme of the Udaipur meeting was the repositioning of PACS beyond credit provision to include diversified economic activities such as storage, supply chains, service delivery, and integration with emerging digital platforms.
This policy direction demonstrates an ambition to leverage PACS as grassroots economic institutions capable of fostering rural value creation, employment, and resilience. It aligns with broader development objectives related to decentralised growth and rural livelihoods.
However, the review discussions also highlighted the governance complexities introduced by this shift. Diversification increases operational risk, necessitates professional management, and requires clear regulatory guidance. Without concurrent strengthening of governance frameworks, risk management systems, and leadership capacity, PACS expansion may expose institutions to financial stress.
The primary policy challenge is to sequence reforms effectively, enabling diversification while ensuring institutional preparedness and regulatory clarity.
Cooperative Banking and Regulatory Coordination
The review meeting revisited longstanding issues in cooperative banking, particularly regulatory overlap and governance weaknesses. The discussions indicate an emerging policy consensus that cooperative banks should be regulated in a manner that balances prudential oversight with cooperative principles.
The policy implication is not deregulation, but rather the adoption of smarter regulation. Enhanced coordination between regulatory authorities, improved board accountability, and professional governance standards are essential to restoring trust in cooperative banking institutions.
The Udaipur review signals recognition that, without addressing governance and regulatory coherence in cooperative finance, broader cooperative reform will remain incomplete.
Capacity Building as Reform Infrastructure
The involvement of national institutions such as LBSNAA, Tribhuvan Sahkari University, NCCT, and VAMNICOM is not incidental. It reflects an understanding that cooperative reform is ultimately a human capital policy. Policy initiatives can redesign institutions, but their success depends on leadership competence, administrative understanding, and governance literacy. The review meeting reinforced the necessity of institutionalising training and leadership development as an ongoing process, aligned with evolving cooperative roles and regulatory expectations.
From a policy perspective, this represents a shift from ad hoc training to systemic capacity building embedded within the cooperative reform architecture.
Federal Coordination and the Role of Review MechanismsThe Udaipur meeting underscores the importance of structured review mechanisms within a federal system where cooperation remains a State subject. While national policies can set direction, implementation outcomes are determined by state-level ownership, administrative capacity, and political economy.
By convening a national review platform, the Ministry of Cooperation signals an intent to advance cooperative federalism anchored in shared accountability and collective learning. If institutionalised, such review mechanisms can reduce fragmentation, harmonise implementation, and facilitate timely course correction.
Conclusion
The National Review Meeting held in Udaipur on 8 and 9 January 2026 marks a transition in India’s cooperative reform journey from policy articulation to implementation discipline. The discussions reveal a reform agenda increasingly focused on governance infrastructure, digital integration, institutional capacity, and accountability.
The true test of ‘Sahkar se Samriddhi’ now lies not in launching new initiatives, but in deepening execution, strengthening institutions, and ensuring that cooperative reforms are durable, professional, and inclusive. The Udaipur review meeting provides insight into this next phase, where institutional outcomes rather than announcements will measure policy success
