The non-release of the District Good Governance Index (DGGI) for 2024-25 raises troubling questions about the state of transparency and administrative accountability in Jammu and Kashmir. Conceived as a flagship reform initiative, the DGGI was never meant to be a routine bureaucratic document. It is a comprehensive performance report card that evaluates all districts across ten critical sectors through 58 carefully selected parameters. Its absence is not a minor procedural lapse-it is a significant governance deficit.
The 2020-21 edition of the DGGI was widely welcomed as a progressive step toward evidence-based policymaking. Developed under the guidance of the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, the index aligned district-level governance assessment with national best practices. It provided a structured mechanism for measuring performance in agriculture, health, education, infrastructure, public service delivery, and grievance redressal. By ranking districts and highlighting sector-wise strengths and weaknesses, it brought objectivity to governance evaluation. The DGGI is not a mere formality. It performs multiple critical functions. First, it provides a comparative snapshot of where each district stands in relation to others. Second, it tracks year-on-year improvement, enabling policymakers to assess whether interventions and fund allocations are yielding results. Third, it acts as a guide for targeted investments, as different schemes receive varying financial allocations each year to address sector-specific gaps. Without updated data, these allocations risk becoming blind expenditures rather than calibrated responses to identified deficiencies.
Moreover, the competitive spirit fostered by district rankings is invaluable. Healthy competition between districts often translates into administrative dynamism. District administrations keep monitoring key indicators more rigorously. This indirect pressure enhances efficiency, encourages innovation in service delivery and strengthens citizen-centric governance. In effect, the DGGI becomes an indirect evaluation of Deputy Commissioners and senior officials, offering the Government a structured framework to review performance alongside other qualitative factors.
Notably, there is no timeline for release. This silence becomes even more glaring when placed against earlier public endorsements of the index by CM. Its prolonged absence, therefore, signals a worrying disconnect between claims and execution. Reports suggesting data verification hurdles and interdepartmental coordination challenges as possible reasons for the delay do little to mitigate concern. If they are stumbling blocks, it points to systemic weaknesses in governance architecture. An index designed to measure efficiency cannot itself become a casualty of inefficiency. The inability to compile and authenticate data in a timely manner undermines claims of digital governance, real-time monitoring and institutional transparency.
More importantly, the delay deprives districts of a crucial opportunity for course correction. Governance indicators are meaningful only when they are timely. If a district is underperforming in health or education, immediate corrective measures are essential. Delayed feedback dilutes accountability and postpones reform. The absence of the DGGI effectively leaves administrators and policymakers navigating without a compass. It also denies citizens the right to know how their districts are performing in comparison to others. Transparency is not merely about releasing financial statements or announcing schemes; it is about sharing performance outcomes. The DGGI represents precisely such an outcome-based transparency tool. Its continuous non-release for nearly two years risks eroding the credibility of the entire exercise. Governance reforms derive their legitimacy from consistency. An annual index must remain annual. Irregularity weakens institutional seriousness and may foster perceptions that data is being selectively delayed. Whether or not such perceptions are justified, their very emergence is damaging.
The Government must, therefore, treat the release of the 2024-25 DGGI as an urgent priority. Data compilation and verification processes should be expedited, interdepartmental bottlenecks resolved, and a clear release timeline communicated to the public. If procedural challenges exist, they must be transparently acknowledged rather than obscured behind vague assurances. The DGGI is too important to be allowed to drift into irrelevance. It is a vital instrument for monitoring service delivery, guiding resource allocation and strengthening administrative accountability.
The post DGGI Delay Raises Concerns appeared first on Daily Excelsior.