Mushroom subsidy in Rajasthan

Rajasthan, recovered 2026-09-13 via the Wayback Machine CDX index, after two prior passes both stopped at the same wall: `agriculture.rajasthan.gov.in/horticulture/` is the state's generic "Jankalyan" Angular portal shell, whose static HTML carries no content and whose JS bundle contains no mushroom string and no scheme API endpoint. All of that remains true. What those passes could not see is that the department's OWN older site survives in the archive.

Route, start to finish, so the next reader can repeat it: 1. `horticulture.rajasthan.gov.in` (a domain no prior pass tried) still resolves; fetched live today it is a two-line meta-refresh redirect to `agriculture.rajasthan.gov.in/content/agriculture/en/Directorate-of-Horticulture-dep.html/`. 2. That `content/...` path is a DIFFERENT tree from the `/horticulture/` SPA, it is the department's old Adobe AEM site. Live, it now serves an Incapsula bot-challenge page (HTTP 200, zero content), so it is unreadable by any static fetcher today. 3. In the Wayback Machine, that same AEM tree is captured with its real content, 2017-2023. Its "Schemes → National Horticulture mission" page lists the department's own year-by-year NHM guideline PDFs under `/content/dam/agriculture/Directorate of Horticulture/nhmscheme/`. 4. Walking that DAM folder in the CDX index turns up guidelines for 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and, the most recent published, **2022-23**, the one this record cites. Its live URL returns HTTP 200 but serves the Jankalyan SPA shell, not the PDF (the soft-404 pattern this project has hit on six states now), so the archived capture is the only readable copy.

Two documents were read for this record, and they agree: the 2016-17 guideline (a DevLys-010 legacy-font PDF, which `pdftotext` renders as pure mojibake, the Kruti-Dev-class trap flagged in this project's own notes) and the 2022-23 guideline (a 120-page scan with no text layer at all, located by OCR-ing every page with `tesseract -l hin` and then READ AS AN IMAGE at 200 dpi, per this project's rule that no Hindi figure may rest on OCR text alone). Both print the same three-row mushroom table with identical figures, six years apart. The rules below are transcribed from the rendered image of the 2022-23 document, printed page 11 (PDF page 17), and cross-checked against the 2016-17 edition's identical table.

Dated, signed, and unambiguously Rajasthan's own: the 2022-23 document opens with the Commissionerate's covering letter on its own letterhead (राजस्थान सरकार / उद्यान आयुक्तालय, पंत कृषि भवन, जयपुर), dispatch number प 21(40)नि.उ./राबामि/जिला/2022-23/3153-3230, dated 03/06/22, signed (चेतन देवड़ा) आयुक्त उद्यान, Commissioner Horticulture. The cost norms here (₹20L/₹15L/₹20L) are not central MIDH's CURRENT Annexure V figures (₹30L/₹20L/₹30L, midh-2025), they are the central figures the current ones replaced, which is a different fact and points the opposite way for a grower. An earlier version of this comment read "they are lower, so a Rajasthan applicant must be quoted these, not the central table", which would have talked a Rajasthan applicant down from ₹12,00,000 to ₹8,00,000 on the strength of a state document reproducing a norm the centre has since raised. What this document establishes is what Rajasthan's own 2022-23 guideline printed, no more; the current central Annexure V is where a Rajasthan grower should start.