Introduction
India is an agricultural country, where even today, approximately 60–70 percent of the population is directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture and animal husbandry. Unfortunately, even after independence, the true producers of rural India—farmers—continued to struggle with poverty, money lending, middlemen, and unequal opportunities for a long time. At this time, a major economic and social question arose: can farmers protect their interests by fighting alone?
The answer to this question was “cooperatives,” i.e., forming organizations and collectively conducting economic activities. The most successful example of this cooperative principle was “Amul,” which not only led India to the White Revolution but also proved that economic revolution becomes possible when farmers become owners and participants. This movement, which began in Anand district of Gujarat in 1946, is today considered the world’s most successful cooperative model.
Amul is not just a commercial brand, but an ideology—one of democracy, transparency, collective ownership, and self-reliance. This article is being written with the aim of understanding the journey, background and relevance of this model in the current context.
The roots of the cooperative movement in India lie with British rule. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rural society suffered from exploitation, moneylender debt, and economic disorganization. Farmers lacked fair prices, affordable credit, and marketing facilities. The foundation of cooperatives was laid to change this situation.
🔹 1904 — Cooperative Credit Societies Act
The British government enacted this law to free farmers from the clutches of moneylenders. Under this law, small farmers could form credit societies and receive collective financial assistance.
🔹 1912 — Cooperative Societies Act
This law permitted the formation of not only credit societies but also production, marketing, and consumer societies. It was the foundation of rural self-organization.
🔹 New Role after Independence
After 1947, cooperatives were considered a pillar of India’s economy. Nehru said, “Cooperatives are the soul of India’s economic fabric.”
The main objectives of cooperatives during this period were:
• Empowering farmers collectively
• Reducing the moneylender system
• Establishing a democratic decision-making system
• Promoting rural development and self-reliance
🔹 Example: Anand’s Cooperative Experiment
In the 1940s, farmers in Gujarat formed village-level milk committees. They collected milk daily and sold it to the district union, with the profits going directly to the farmers. This model later became the origin of “Amul.”
Initially, cooperatives served as a vehicle for empowering farmers, but over time, many state-level cooperative institutions began to weaken. The main reasons for this are:
✅ 1. Political interference
Cooperative societies became a means of vote bank and control for politicians. Political pressure increased in the appointment, election, and policy-making of members, eroding the independence of these institutions.
✅ 2. Lack of transparency and management
Farmers’ trust eroded due to lax economics and accounting management. Many societies became centers of scams and mismanagement.
✅ 3. Competition from private companies
Private and corporate companies entered the dairy and agricultural marketing sectors in many states. For a long time, cooperatives lagged behind in technology, quality, and branding.
✅ 4. Government dependence
Instead of raising their own capital, state cooperative institutions became dependent on government grants and loans. Self-reliance decreased, and operations slowed.
✅ 5. Decline in Farmer Participation
As decision-making power became limited to politicians or officials, farmer participation declined. Without member participation, cooperatives became mere formalities on paper.
✅ 6. Legal and Policy Complexities
Different state laws, administrative controls, and litigation rendered cooperatives ineffective.
🔹The result was that in many places, cooperatives became less of a vehicle for farmers and more of a hub of politics and corruption. However, models like Amul have proven that with proper management, democratic participation, and transparency, cooperatives can still be highly effective.
Political Interference – The Biggest Challenge for Cooperatives
The spirit of the cooperative movement in India was “people’s empowerment through public participation,” but over time, many cooperative societies fell under the control of political influence. This severely impacted the organization’s transparency, independence, and democratic structure.
🔹How does political interference occur?
1. Pressure and recommendations in elections
o People from political parties are appointed to the positions of chairman, manager, and director of the committee.
o Membership and voting processes are influenced.
2. Misuse of resources
o Committee funds are used for political propaganda or personal interests.
o Budgets meant for development, production, or farmer welfare are manipulated.
3. Control over administrative positions
o People with no connection to agriculture or cooperatives are appointed to high positions.
o Decisions are made for political gain rather than farmer interests.
4. Interference in policies and appointments
o Governments change committee rules to benefit their supporters.
o Officials in management committees are selected based on loyalty rather than merit.
🔹What are the consequences?
• Farmers’ trust weakened
• Societies suffered financial losses
• Youth and women’s participation declined
• Cooperatives became platforms for politicians rather than for working people
• Corruption, nepotism, and mismanagement increased
• Actual members (farmers, dairy producers, artisans) were excluded from decision-making
🔹What could be the solutions?
✅ Autonomous administrative structure
✅ Direct and transparent election by members
✅ Term limits/reappointment controls on political officials
✅ Digital voting and audit systems
✅ The government’s role should be “facilitative,” not controlling
✅ Farmer-based representation and management
✅ An independent Election Commission-like system for cooperatives
Lack of Transparency And Management
The success of cooperatives depends on their honest, professional, and accountable governance. However, in many states, this has become the biggest drawback—lack of transparency and weak management systems.
🔹 Why is transparency important?
Cooperatives’ capital sources are:
✔ Farmer members
✔ Government support
✔ Income from production and marketing
When these resources are not clearly accounted for, both the organization’s purpose and credibility are compromised.
🔹 What are the manifestations of management weaknesses?
1. Accounting irregularities
o Records are not updated
o Irregular audits
o Loan and payment information is unclear
2. Lack of effective leadership
o Lack of trained managers or financial experts
o Decisions are made based on emotional or political considerations
o Members are not involved in planning
3. Lack of digital systems makes fraud prone
o Cash transactions
o Lack of receipts
o Transparency in storage, marketing, and distribution
4. Arbitrary withdrawals and profit distribution
o Dividends are not paid on time
o Profit distribution is not proportionate
o Only a few officials exercise financial control
5. Weak reporting systems
o Annual reports are not prepared
o Meeting minutes are not recorded
o Government and member oversight are absent
🔹 What were the consequences?
• Member confidence decreased
• Financial losses increased
• Dependence on external debt increased
• Youth and women distanced themselves
• Cooperatives became defunct or inactive
• Private businesses seized the opportunity
🔹 Measures to improve transparency and management
✅ Implement digital accounting and ERP systems
✅ All financial transactions should be conducted through banking channels
✅ Annual audits should be mandatory and public
✅ Members should receive reports through an online portal
✅ Finance, marketing, and technical experts should be included in the management committee
✅ RTI and registrar-level monitoring should be conducted
✅ Meetings should be regular and recorded
✅ Dividend distribution should be timely and transparent
Competition From Private Companies
India’s cooperatives have long been the mainstay of the rural economy, dairying, farming, marketing, and rural finance. However, the entry of private companies in the last two decades has challenged their position.
🔹Why have private companies proven stronger?
1. Modern technology and management
o Private institutions have better machinery, cold chain, packing, marketing, and distribution networks.
o They utilize data, digital platforms, and market research.
2. Capital and investment access
o The private sector is able to expand rapidly with the help of banking, investors, and FDI.
o Cooperatives lag behind due to a lack of capital.
3. Mastery of branding and marketing
o Private companies are active on TV, social media, and FMCG channels.
o Cooperatives often fail to promote their products.
4. Professional staff and training system
o Management is conducted from an economic perspective, not politically or irresponsibly.
o Employees are trained and incentivized.
5. Focus on customer preferences
o Products are improved in terms of quality, packaging, price, and delivery.
o Cooperatives often continue to operate in traditional ways.
🔹 Its Impact on Cooperatives
• Market share gradually shifted to private companies
• Cooperative dairy, food processing, seed production, and marketing organizations began to weaken
• Farmers had to rely on private agents for sales
• Cooperative procurement and payments were delayed, while the private sector paid promptly
• Private networks became active even in local markets
🔹 How can cooperatives survive the competition?
✅ 1. Repurposing the Amul Model
• Multi-tiered structure (village → district → state)
• Producers are the owners and beneficiaries
✅ 2. Technological and Financial Upgradation
• Processing Units, Cold Storage, Digital Payments
• Funding from NABARD, NCDC, and Government Schemes
✅ 3. Brand Building and Marketing Strategy
• National Recognition of Local Brands
• Entry into E-commerce and Retail Channels
✅ 4. Member-Based Profit Model
• Direct Procurement and Payment from Farmers
• Profit Share Directly into Farmers’ Accounts
✅ 5. Training and Professional Management
• Addition of Managers, Chartered Accountants, Marketing Experts
• Involvement of Youth and Women
✅ 6. Emphasis on Quality and Innovation
• Product Diversification (Ghee, Paneer, Packaged Milk, Organic Food)
• Consumer-Friendly Packaging
✅ 7. Support from the Government and the Ministry of Cooperatives
• Policy Protection, tax relief and digitalisation
Government Dependence – The Biggest Constraint on Autonomy
The purpose of establishing cooperatives was to create an organization owned by the people, for the people, and owned by the people.
But over time, the operation of these organizations became dependent on government grants, schemes, and administrative control. This stifled both self-reliance and innovation.
🔹Major Forms of Government Dependence
1. Excessive Reliance on Financial Assistance
o Dependence on Grants, Subsidies, and Government Loans
o Weak Capital Formation and Self-Investment Propensity
o Recourse to Government Schemes to Cover Deficits
2. Policy Control and Interference
o Registrar and Ministry’s Authority over Committee Management
o Changing Committee Constitutions or Preventing Elections
o Appointments Under External Pressure
3. Delays in Loans and Grants
o Production Disrupted Due to Lack of Timely Funding
o Member Payments Delayed
o Risk of Losing External Markets
4. Slow Decision-Making
o Administrative Restrictions on Autonomous Decisions
o Dependence on Files, Approvals, and Licenses
o New Projects Cannot Be Started on Time
5. Reduced Ability to Compete Independently
o Private Entities Make Decisions Quickly
o Cooperatives Get Trapped in Paperwork
🔹Adverse Effects of Government Dependence
• Self-Capital Formation Ends
• Dependence on Decision-Making Weak
• Member Participation Decreased
• Sluggishness and Corruption in Management Increased
• Self-reliance has been replaced by a “gratification-based model”
• Youth and skilled individuals have been alienated from the sector
🔹 Solution: Towards self-reliant and autonomous cooperatives
✅ 1. Internal capital formation
• Member share capital
• Dividend reinvestment
• Income from value-added products
✅ 2. Government role should be “facilitator,” not controller
• Limited to guidance, technical, and financial assistance
• Decisions should remain in the hands of farmers and members
✅ 3. Direct funding model from NABARD, NCDC, and banks
• Reduced reliance on government approvals
• Use of the Cooperative Infrastructure Fund
✅ 4. Digital and professional operations
• E-management system
• Audit and reporting online
• Transparent accounting system
✅ 5. Shift towards profit-oriented social enterprises
• Production-based revenue instead of government grants
• Sectors like FMCG, agricultural marketing, dairy, and handicrafts Expansion of
✅ 6. Constitutional Autonomy
• Implementing the spirit of the 97th Constitutional Amendment
• Promoting structures like multi-state cooperatives
Declining farmer participation – Weakening The Fundamentals of Cooperatives
The backbone of the cooperative movement has been farmers, dairy producers, artisans, and rural entrepreneurs. However, as transparency, accountability, and ownership within cooperatives declined, farmers increasingly withdrew from active participation.
🔹Why has farmer participation declined?
1. Decision-making power was lost
o Officials and office-bearers began to make decisions
o Village-level committees’ voices were ignored
2. Delays or discrimination in dividends and payments
o Non-timely payments
o Irregularities in profit distribution
3. Non-farmer pressure in elections
o Influence of outside politicians and contractors
o Manipulation of membership lists
4. Farmers were ignored in management
o Farmers were not involved in technical and administrative decisions
o Training and participation opportunities were limited
5. Lack of trust
o Corruption, mismanagement, and scams eroded farmers’ confidence
o A shift toward private agents and companies increased
6. Lack of incentives and communication
o Village-level meetings were absent
o Grievance and suggestion mechanisms were inactive
🔹 Consequences
• Committees became nominal
• Membership numbers began to decline
• The production, procurement, and marketing base weakened
• Young farmers became reluctant to join
• Private companies filled the void
• Cooperative societies were considered “people’s institutions” From a “management body” to a “management body”
🔹 Measures to Increase Farmer Participation
✅ 1. Member-Based Decision-Making
• Real Rights for Every Village Committee
• Direct Farmer Participation in Voting and Policy
✅ 2. Guaranteed Benefits and Payments
• Prompt Payment for Produce Purchases
• Transparent Dividend Distribution
✅ 3. Regular Meetings and Dialogue Forums
• Monthly Gram Sabha-Level Discussions
• Implementation of a Problem-Suggestion System
✅ 4. Improved Electoral System
• Digital Membership List
• Fair and Timely Voting
✅ 5. Training and Incentive Models
• Workshops on Agriculture, Dairy, Marketing, and Finance
• Special Opportunities for Youth and Women
✅ 6. Restoring Farmer Ownership
• Representation of Producers on the Management Board
• Selection of Office Bearers Based on Production or Contribution
✅ 7. Strengthening the Profit-Sharing Model
• Revive the “Member = Owner” Principle To do
• Participatory framework from village to district level
Legal and policy Complexities – The Biggest Hurdle in The Way of Reform
The framework of laws and policies governing cooperatives in the country is complex, multi-layered, and sometimes contradictory. This not only impacts the efficiency of cooperatives but also hinders innovation, expansion, and autonomy.
🔹Key Legal and Policy Challenges
1. Different Laws by State
o Each state has its own State Cooperative Act.
o Laws from one state do not apply to another.
o Multi-state cooperatives are subject to different laws.
2. Government control and approval constraints
Government dominance over committee elections, appointments, audits, and policy decisions
O Administrative approval required for any scheme or expansion
3. Limited enforcement capacity of the 97th Constitutional Amendment
Cooperatives received constitutional status, but many states have not fully implemented it
O The spirit of autonomy and democracy remains limited to paper
4. Complex licensing and registration processes
Delays in registering new committees
O Ambiguity in rules and burdensome paperwork
O Sometimes arbitrary behavior by local registrars
5. Court cases and legal disputes
O Increased litigation due to internal committee conflicts
O Blockage of elections, office bearers, and financial matters
O Long-term litigation
6. Lack of a transparent audit system
O Professional and digital audits not implemented in many states
O Irregular or biased reporting
7. Lack of policy coordination
O Lack of coordination between the Ministry of Cooperation, Panchayat Raj, Agriculture, Dairy, and Rural Development departments
O Failure to deliver benefits of schemes on the ground
🔹 Due to these complexities Consequences
• Committees are unable to make autonomous decisions
• Timely elections and financial work are hampered
• Innovation, expansion, and business competition are hampered
• Farmers and youth are driven away
• Legal disputes paralyze institutions for years
🔹 Practical Solutions
✅ 1. Efforts towards a uniform cooperative law
• Harmonization of state and central laws
• Recognition of cooperatives as a “socio-economic unit”
✅ 2. Digital and simplified registration system
• Online registration, licensing, and documentation
• Timely approval system
✅ 3. Independent mechanism for elections and management
• State Cooperative Election Authority
• Prohibition of political interference
✅ 4. Transparent audit and inspection model
• Online audit system
• Public annual reports
✅ 5. Tribunal for speedy resolution of legal disputes
• Cooperative tribunal or Lok Adalat system
• Litigation Timelines should be established.
✅ 6. Policy coordination and institutional support.
• Coordination between the Ministry of Cooperation, NABARD, NCDC, and the Department of Agriculture.
• Single-window support system.
✅ 7. Professional leadership, similar to the private model.
• Appointment of experts in management, finance, and marketing.
• Minimum qualification standards for office bearers.
Solutions and The Path to a Stronger Cooperative Model
India’s cooperative system certainly has weaknesses, but this model remains the most effective option for rural development, agricultural empowerment, and the collective economy. What is needed is reform, restructuring, and repurposing with a modern approach.
✅ (a) Restoring democratic participation and farmer ownership
The fundamental principle of cooperatives is “one member, one vote.” If farmers become decisive partners, not just members, then these institutions can be revived.
Remedies:
• Ensure direct participation of farmers
• Ensure elections are transparent, regular, and non-political
• Ensure timely distribution of profits to members
• Ensure production-based representation on management committees
✅ (b) Transparent administration and accountability
Corruption and mismanagement have been the biggest obstacles to cooperatives. If financial and policy transparency are ensured, credibility will automatically increase.
Solutions:
• Digital accounting and audit system
• RTI-based accountability model
• Online reporting and member portal
• Timely accountability of board members
✅ (c) Controlling political interference
Preventing political interference is the most essential step so that decisions are made based on the needs of farmers, not influenced by electoral calculations.
Solutions:
• Autonomous status for committee management
• Limiting the government’s role to that of a “facilitator”
• An independent electoral system like the Election Commission
• Limiting the tenure of office bearers
✅ (d) Modern technology and professional management
In today’s times, no organization can survive without technology, marketing, and quality management. This is a major reason for Amul’s success.
Solutions:
• ERP and digital data systems
• Appoint professional managers and technical experts
• Modernize production, processing, branding, and marketing
• Adopt e-commerce and app-based marketing
✅ (e) Financial independence and capital expansion
If a cooperative survives solely on government grants, its health will not improve. Revenue and investment models are essential for self-reliance.
Solutions:
• Share capital investment by members
• Value-addition-based production
• Dividend reinvestment policy
• Utilize bank-linked schemes and NABARD support
✅ (f) Ensuring youth and women’s participation
The hallmark of the Amul model was the large number of women, small farmers, and backward classes who joined it. This strengthened the organization’s roots.
Measures:
• Women’s Dairy Cooperatives
• Youth Leadership Training
• Cooperative Education Campaign at the Village Level
• Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Promotion
✅ (g) Replicate Successful Models Like Amul
India has not only failed examples, but also successful institutions—such as Amul, IFFCO, Karnataka Milk Federation, Warana Cooperative, etc.
Imitable Elements:
• Multi-level structure (village → district → state)
• Member-based ownership
• Direct distribution of profits
• Branding and enterprise-level governance
• Transparency in decision-making
Restoring Democratic Participation and Farmer Ownership
The spirit of the cooperative movement lies in “democratic participation” and “member ownership.” When farmers are involved in the decision-making process, the organization not only survives but also becomes a strong vehicle for development. However, over time, this spirit has weakened, and committees have become subservient to officials and outside influences rather than members.
It is time to reconnect the cooperative model with its original roots.
🔹 Why is democratic participation important?
• Cooperative societies are “people-based” institutions, not government departments.
• Decisions should be made from the bottom, not the top.
• Producers (farmers/milk producers) are the real owners.
• A sense of ownership makes farmers active and responsible.
• Economic benefits flow directly to members.
🔹 Reasons for the current decline:
1. Committee elections have become politicized.
2. Member participation in meetings has decreased.
3. Decisions are limited to a few.
4. Information about dividends and schemes does not reach members.
5. Village-level committees have become inactive.
6. Young farmers and women have been left out.
✅ Solution: Restore democracy and ownership.
✔ 1. Strengthen the “one member, one vote” system.
• Voting rights should be given only to active members.
• A transparent membership list should be maintained.
• Elections should be digital and fair.
✔ 2. Village-level committees should be empowered.
• Participation at the village level before the block or district level.
• Local Meetings and Annual General Meetings are mandatory.
✔ 3. Real participation of farmers in management.
• Producer-based representation on boards and committees.
• Elections for office bearers based on production or contribution.
✔ 4. Involving women and youth in leadership.
• Special reservation or quota system.
• Integrating self-help groups into the cooperative structure.
✔ 5. Digital transparency and communication.
• Information sharing through mobile apps/portals.
• Dividend, schemes, and payment details on the member portal.
✔ 6. Farmer ownership-based profit distribution model.
• Dividends directly into bank accounts.
• Farmer share of year-end profits based on percentage.
• Production-based bonus system.
✔ 7. Awareness and training.
• Member empowerment through village meetings, camps, and workshops.
• Cooperative leadership training programs.
🔹 Why is the Amul model inspiring?
Amul’s three-tier structure (village cooperative society → district union → state union) still operates on this principle:
✔ Farmers are the owners
✔ Farmers are the decision-makers
✔ Profits flow directly to members
✔ “Producer interests” are prioritized over politics
Transparent Governance and Acountability
The credibility and sustainability of cooperatives depend on how transparent, accountable, and member-centric their governance is. When societies are run in a fair manner, farmers, laborers, and small producers are not only active but also engage with trust. But where transparency ends, corruption, favoritism, and economic decline begin.
Therefore, “transparent governance” and “accountability” are essential for the revival of cooperatives.
🔹 What problems does a lack of transparency cause?
1. Financial irregularities and corruption
o Misappropriation of funds
o Manipulation of accounts
o Delays in dividend payments or payments
2. Weak records and audit systems
o Registers are not updated
o Annual audits are superficial
o Lack of digital systems
3. Members are deprived of information
o Schemes, benefits, and policies are not disclosed
o Meetings are not timely reported
o Decisions are limited to a few individuals
4. External influences in management
o Decisions are driven by administration or politics
o Farmer representatives are not heard
5. Lack of discipline and accountability
o Officials are not accountable
o Complaints are not addressed
✅ Solution: Establish transparent and accountable administration
✔ 1. Digital accounting and audit system
• ERP and online accounting
• Public annual audit report
• Compliance with the NABARD/NCDC model
✔ 2. All financial transactions are through banking channels
• Cashless payments
• Dividends directly deposited into member accounts
• Data recorded online
✔ 3. Member portal and information Mechanisms
• Updates via mobile app, SMS, and website
• Meeting, dividend, and purchase information available
✔ 4. Transparent procurement and pricing
• Direct procurement from producers
• Elimination of intermediaries
• Publicizing price lists
✔ 5. Grievance and monitoring mechanisms
• Helpline number or digital complaint portal
• Timely settlement mechanism
✔ 6. Accountability provisions for office bearers
• Annual review
• Term limits
• Expulsion for poor performance
✔ 7. Regular general meetings and review meetings
• AGM and monthly meetings mandatory
• Written record of decisions
• Signatures of attending members
✔ 8. Independent audit and inspection teams
• External experts
• Timely investigations
• Reports presented to members
🔹 Example: Success of Amul and IFFCO
• At Amul, every payment is digital
• Accounts for purchases, sales, and bonuses are recorded online
• Farmers receive complete information through apps, messages, and portals.
• Records of audits and meetings are kept public.
Control Over Political Interference
The greatest strength of the cooperative movement is its democratic organization, but when political influence increases, the autonomy, transparency, and purpose of these institutions begin to weaken. Political interference has alienated many cooperatives from farmers and members. Therefore, it is necessary to reposition these institutions not as “political platforms” but as “member-owned economic organizations.”
🔹How does political interference harm?
1. Capture of the Electoral Process
o Officials are selected based on political influence, not merit
o External pressure exists on membership lists and voting
o 2. Misuse of Resources
o Committee earnings are used for political propaganda or personal gain
o Development work is left behind
3. Decisions are personalized or biased
o The united voice of farmers, laborers, and dairy producers is ignored
o Policies benefit politicians more than farmers
4. Arbitrariness in Recruitment and Appointments
o Employees and officials are appointed based on connections and recommendations
o Efficiency and accountability are affected
5. Self-reliance and innovation are hampered
o Committees become dependent on government/political dictates
o Independent business and operational capacity are diminished
✅ Solution: Practical Measures to Limit Political Control
✔ 1. Autonomous Administrative Structure
• Committees should operate under a “Members Council”
• Clear legal prohibition on political party interference
✔ 2. Independent Electoral System
• Cooperative Election Commission or third party Monitoring
• Digital voting and member verification
✔ 3. Qualifications and rules for office bearers
• Production/membership-based eligibility
• Maximum tenure and age limit
• “No political posts + no cooperative posts” policy
✔ 4. Financial independence
• Use of member capital and production income instead of government grants
• Dividends directly to members
✔ 5. Transparency in decision-making
• Meetings should be regular and recorded
• Farmers should be involved before decisions are made
✔ 6. Legal reforms
• Amendments to the constitution of cooperatives
• Disqualification provisions for office bearers who engage in political interference
✔ 7. Management like the Amul model
• “No leaders, only member leadership”
• Management decisions based on production and economic interests
🔹 Inspiring example
✅ Amul (Gujarat)
With farmer-based management, staying away from politics, cooperatives became a global model.
✅ IFFCO
The joint operation of farmer representatives and professionals has led to a self-sustaining and profitable organization.
✅ Karnataka’s Nandini Model
Rapid growth has been achieved through committee- and member-based decisions rather than government-based ones.
Conclusion
India’s cooperative system is not just an economic unit, but the lifeline of social justice, collective ownership, and rural development. Models like Amul have proven that if farmers become owners, partners, and decision-makers, cooperatives can become more than just institutions, but also a vehicle for revolution.
Cooperatives weakened when they became alienated from farmers and became victims of politics, corruption, and mismanagement. But the solution lies here—re-centering farmers, embracing technology, increasing transparency, and adapting the framework to the needs of the modern market.
Today, as the country moves towards “self-reliant India,” “rural employment,” “agribusiness,” and “organized production,” the role of cooperatives becomes more important than ever. The new Ministry of Cooperation created by the Prime Minister and the vision of “Prosperity through Cooperation” indicate that this system has entered a phase of revival.
If, based on successful experiences like Amul, democratic, transparent, and economically viable cooperative models are developed in other states, they will not only increase farmers’ incomes but also empower, self-reliant, and organize rural India.
Ultimately, cooperatives are not merely about building organizations, but rather a movement of trust, participation, and collective development. They will play a crucial role in India’s social and economic future—provided they receive the right direction, the right leadership, and the right policy support.
References / Sources
1. Government Documents and Policies
o Cooperative Societies Acts, 1904 and 1912
o National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) Reports
o Ministry of Cooperation, Government of India – Policy Documents
o NABARD Annual Reports
o Provisions Related to Cooperatives in Five-Year Plans
2. Institutional Studies and Reports
o Official Website and Annual Report of Amul (GCMMF)
o “White Revolution and Cooperative Movement” – Memoirs of Verghese Kurien
o Cooperative Policy and Organizational Model of IFFCO
o Publications of State Dairy Federations
3. Research and Academic Sources
o Research Papers of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
o Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) – Cooperative Studies
o Case Studies of the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIM-A)
4. Statistics and Current Data Sources
o Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Website
o National Statistical Office (NSO) Data
o Ministry of Rural Development MIS Reports
o Annual Status Report of the Dairy and Agricultural Marketing Board
5. News and Analysis Sources
o The Hindu Business Line
o Down to Earth
o Rural Development Magazine
o Indian Express – Article on the Cooperative Movement
6. Local and Regional Examples
o Case Report of the Anand (Gujarat) Dairy Union
o Warana Cooperative Model (Maharashtra)
o Karnataka Milk Federation (Nandini) Report
o Kerala Dairy Movement