-

Megha Bhatt

A few months ago, while working in one of the tribal districts of Madhya Pradesh, I saw a water
conservation structure. The structure looked promising, but there was one problem: it had not
retained water throughout the year. The reason was surprisingly simple, the site had been
selected without considering the local topography and hydrology. The investment had created
an asset, but not the intended outcome.

That experience made me realise that rural development is not merely about creating more assets or increasing public expenditure. It is about creating the right asset, at the right place, based on sound evidence and local needs. When planning is not informed by scientific evidence and local context, even well- intentioned public investments may fail to deliver their intended outcomes.

Such gaps ultimately undermine the four core principles of public expenditure: Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Equity (4Es) raising an important question: how can public investments create lasting value for rural communities?

While working on the planning phase of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika
Mission (VB‑GRAM G) this year, I realised that one of the most significant changes was not the
introduction of new technology itself, but the way technology was embedded throughout the
planning cycle to create a more scientific, transparent, efficient, and integrated planning system.

Importantly, this embedding was not just about digital tools, but about strengthening governance through institutional readiness, administrative capacity, skilled human resources, and participatory mechanisms to ensure better development impact. This transformation is
operationalised through VB-G RAM G’s “Complete Digital Journey”, where digital platforms
support every stage from demand collection and GIS-based planning to technical approval,
work execution, monitoring, geotagging, wage payments, and asset management.

Instead of digitising individual tasks, the mission establishes an end-to-end digital workflow that improves coordination, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making.
The process begins with participatory planning, where community priorities identified through
the Gram Sabha are translated into a comprehensive list of proposed works with GIS
coordinates. These activities are then digitised through the Planner software, which prepares
the Labour Budget and the Shelf of Projects in a structured and standardised manner. The
proposed works are subsequently integrated with the Software for Identification and Planning of Rural Infrastructure (SIPRI) platform, where geospatial analysis supports scientific site
selection, helping ensure that assets are planned in technically suitable locations.

The workflow is further strengthened through Yukthadhara, which uses satellite imagery and geospatial verification to minimise duplication of works, validate project locations, and ensure that public assets are created exactly where they were planned. Together, these digital platforms aim to make rural development planning more evidence-based, transparent, accountable, and outcome-oriented.

However, while the vision of VB‑GRAM G is strong, insights from capacity‑building
interactions with more than 500 participants including GIS experts, Engineers, Gram Panchayat Secretaries, and Gram Rozgar Sahayaks (GRS) showed that technology alone cannot ensure effective policy outcomes.

The discussions highlighted that without institutional readiness
including robust digital infrastructure, adequately trained personnel, and supportive
administrative systems technology adoption may remain limited. Participants emphasized that
while portals and digital tools are valuable, their success depends on clarity of roles, proper
training, reliable data integration, and alignment of village‑level realities with official records.

During the process, several areas were identified that require further strengthening. Timelines
and planning modules needed greater clarity across Gram Sabha, Janpad, and Zila levels to
support smoother coordination and tracking. Frontline staff such as GRS and Panchayat
functionaries required clearer guidance, while district and state officials had comparatively more understanding of the process. Portals continued to operate in a trial‑and‑error mode, with village boundaries not aligning between Spatial Information Platform for Rural Infrastructure (SIPRI) and the Survey of India. Khasra records for residential areas were incomplete, limiting the accuracy of mapping. In addition, community data was not separated at the individual level, which reduced the precision of planning outputs.

As the first year of VB‑GRAM G is underway, the process continues in the planning phase
through July 2026. At this stage, it is important to identify areas requiring further strengthening.

Capturing these aspects within the initial cycle not only provides a foundation for improved
coordination and more effective implementation, but also guides the planning required for the
next cycle. .In this context, well‑defined and consistently communicated timelines are essential, particularly for frontline staff such as GRS and SachivClearer guidance for these functionaries will help bridge the gap between district/state officials and ground‑level teams.

Portals should be stabilised beyond the trial‑and‑error phase, ensuring alignment of village boundaries between SIPRI and the Survey of India, and completion of Khasra records for residential areas.

In addition, community data needs to be disaggregated at the individual level to enhance the
accuracy and precision of planning outputs. Together, these measures will strengthen
institutional readiness and governance, enabling VB‑GRAM G to achieve greater impact.While
the current cycle already focuses on planning and implementation, the insights captured here
will serve as a valuable foundation for the upcoming years of VB‑GRAM G, ensuring that future
rounds of planning and execution are more precise, coordinated, and impactful.

Equally important is adopting a user‑centred design approach, where digital systems are
developed with active participation of frontline users through continuous feedback and iterative improvements. This ensures that technology remains responsive to ground realities rather than being imposed top‑down. Yet, the effective use of digital technology depends on four enabling factors: institutional readiness (clear structures and accountability), administrative capacity (timely and coordinated action), skilled human resources (trained staff for accurate data handling), and governance mechanisms (transparent, participatory processes).

From a public policy perspective, the success of VB‑GRAM G should ultimately be evaluated
against the four principles of public expenditure: Economy (reducing costs and leakages),
Efficiency (timely and optimal use of resources), Effectiveness (achieving intended
employment and asset‑creation outcomes), and Equity (ensuring inclusive access for
vulnerable households). Technology should therefore be seen as an enabler of these
governance objectives, aligning institutions, administrative systems, human capacity, and
community participation to deliver meaningful and inclusive outcomes. When these elements
converge, the result is improved rural governance that is both sustainable and equitable.

Author –

Megha Bhatt holds a Master’s degree in Rural Development and Governance from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), India. Currently serves as District Coordinator (Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning) with PRADAN in Mandla district of the Central Indian Tribal Region. Her work focuses on strengthening decentralized governance systems through engagement with Panchayati Raj Institutions, System Actors, Community-Based Organizations, and grassroot leadership structures.

Her academic and professional interests lie in research, decentralized governance, rural development, participatory institutions, climate resilience, natural resource governance, and evidence-informed public policy.

Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.

History