1. Towards structured infrastructure governance through a clean institutional blueprint

India did not arrive at structured infrastructure governance through a clean institutional blueprint. It evolved through years of fragmented responsibilities, departmental silos, and legacy files that often travelled more than the projects themselves. The administrative ecosystem carried inertia and layered permissions, where timelines stretched and accountability dissolved in process-heavy routines. Yet somewhere in the last decade, the governance rhythm shifted. Paper trails began merging with digital oversight, and institutional responsibility started appearing not as a dispersed idea but as a measurable expectation tied to real-world execution.

The emergence of PRAGATI and the architecture surrounding the Project Monitoring Group (PMG) signals that shift. These instruments do not behave like ordinary review tools. They intervene in rhythm, not form. They pull ministries, states, and implementation agencies into a single decision room where delays are visible, excuses weaken, and project slippages no longer stay invisible. The narrative moves from reporting progress to defending delay. A quiet behavioural recalibration begins, and governance stops being a record-keeping function and starts becoming an implementation responsibility.

The shift toward digital oversight created a new tone in the system. PRAGATI brought real-time monitoring, geo-spatial visibility, recurring review cycles, and escalation discipline. The platform was launched as a multi-modal governance system aimed at “Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation” (News Updates, 2015). But its effect unfolded beyond the tagline. It changed how government actors perceived accountability. The Prime Minister’s review function within PRAGATI introduced an unspoken administrative signal: timelines matter, explanations matter, and delay has a visible audience now.

Project Monitoring Groups emerged earlier as facilitation mechanisms and later matured into structured coordination systems. Under DPIIT, PMG became an interface space where project proponents could escalate regulatory hurdles and activate administrative channels intended to unblock approvals, land permissions, clearances, or jurisdiction conflicts (Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade [DPIIT], n.d.). While PRAGATI introduced a leadership-driven monitoring cadence, PMG shaped the operational scaffolding necessary to sustain such discipline. Together, they reflect a governance architecture attempting to pull India’s infrastructure ecosystem into more predictable cycles of review, decision, and delivery.

The language of governance around PRAGATI and PMG is not aspirational. It is administrative, procedural, sometimes rigid, but increasingly measurable. The platforms also represent a subtle federal conversation. Data is shared. Delays appear in collective view. Ministries and states operate in a shared monitoring field. The system begins loosening older habits where projects slipped through cracks of jurisdiction or responsibility.

These instruments did not arrive to decorate the system with dashboards. They emerged as attempts to rewire behaviours, formalise tempo, and replace fragmented decision-making with coordinated institutional pressure. The process is not complete, nor uniform across sectors. But these two platforms represent the first step toward creating a governance culture where visibility replaces assumption and timelines stop being advisory.

The tension in the system remains. India’s infrastructure pipeline is large, complex, politically diverse, and economically uneven. But platforms like PRAGATI and PMG signal that the era of invisible delay may be narrowing. They represent the beginning of a new administrative logic, where infrastructure is governed through continuous oversight and public projects no longer disappear behind procedural curtains.

Methodology Note: This paper adopts a governance-focused analytical approach, examining PRAGATI and PMG not as isolated administrative tools but as evolving institutional mechanisms shaping India’s shift toward unified infrastructure oversight. The analysis draws exclusively from official public documents, case material and government-published datasets already referenced, and interprets them within a critical governance lens centred on asset continuity, lifecycle responsibility and resilience-linked performance. The arguments are positioned toward a BNRI-oriented framing, where infrastructure is assessed beyond commissioning and viewed through continuity, risk exposure and operational integrity. AI was utilised only for language refinement and structural clarity, while all interpretation, reasoning and analytical positioning remain author-driven. 

This Executive Brief precedes the main analysis section and is intended for decision-makers requiring a high-level overview.

2. PRAGATI in the Context of Infrastructure and Assets Governance

2.1 The Shift to Integrated Governance

PRAGATI arrived not as a decorative e-governance front end, but as an operational pressure mechanism that could make delays visible, record explanations, and bring unresolved decisions into direct scrutiny. The official description framed it as a platform for “Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation” and early press notes underlined its function in enabling real-time oversight and “timely implementation” (News Updates, 2015). The architecture relied on multiple tools that the Indian system had not previously used in a unified form. Live dashboards, geo-tagged project locations, escalation alerts, and structured documentation routines began forming a system where excuses started losing hiding space.

The platform stitched together layers of governance that earlier operated in silos. Central ministries, state bureaucracies, district decision nodes, and grievance systems were now appearing inside the same monitoring field. The logic was simple but systemically disruptive. If a project was delayed because of land disputes, environmental clearance, departmental ambiguity, or inter-departmental hesitation, the delay would sit visible in a shared digital environment rather than isolated inside files. That visibility compelled action. It created pressure. It normalised follow-up.

India’s scale demands such governance rhythm, because infrastructure pipelines sit across multiple jurisdictions and authorities. Without a central monitoring environment, timelines break, and accountability disperses. PRAGATI introduced a format where governance became a shared responsibility space. Monthly review cycles and mandatory digital records turned oversight into a routine administrative exercise, not an exceptional intervention.

The incorporation of grievance-linked feedback set another layer into the logic of governance. By looping citizen-facing challenges back into the same platform that monitored national projects, PRAGATI blurred the distance between macro-level investment governance and street-level public experience. The system began behaving like an integrated public value chain rather than a compartmentalised project tracker.

The tone of governance shifted. The platform did not rely on persuasion or advisories. It relied on visibility. Being unprepared or slow carried reputational cost. The frequency of review ensured continuity of pressure. The design reflected a governance intention where delay was not treated as normal but as a condition requiring justification.

PRAGATI is still situated inside a broader institutional journey and has not resolved all operational contradictions in India’s infrastructure domain. Yet the platform embodies a structural governance moment where digital oversight, leadership review, and multilevel coordination converge into a single operational environment. It represents a movement away from fragmented oversight toward a governance style that expects coherence, timeliness, and recorded responsibility across the lifecycle of national infrastructure.

2.2 Lifecycle and User-Centric Logic

PRAGATI gradually shifted from being a monitoring interface into a system that forces a continuity mindset in public asset governance. Earlier phases of public infrastructure delivery in India were largely confined to planning and sanctioning milestones, with execution treated as a separate administrative universe and post-commissioning usage barely entering the formal feedback space. PRAGATI disrupted that pattern by tying grievances, delays, and service delivery failures directly to the same digital environment that tracked physical project progress. The platform operationalised the idea that a project is not complete when it is inaugurated, but when it performs, and when that performance withstands public scrutiny.

This approach made the citizen not an external observer, but an input layer inside the governance mechanism. Complaints, field-level disruptions, and gaps in service access entered the same chain of visibility as high-value national infrastructure updates. When the program architecture integrated this linkage, it signalled that infrastructure would now be treated as a living system rather than a completed expenditure. The moment grievances and utilisation experience became traceable against asset development timelines, administrative culture began adjusting to a new logic where accountability did not stop after project completion.

Monthly review cycles played a central role in reinforcing this behaviour. They created a rhythm that prevented long administrative silence around stalled or compromised projects. Digital documentation meant explanation trails existed. Absence or delay could no longer float unrecorded. Instead, it sat inside a persistent timeline that could be revisited and questioned in the next review round. Rule-based monitoring pushed the system away from discretionary pace toward a predictable administrative schedule.

The structure mirrored trends identified in global governance transitions where public systems increasingly rely on measurable citizen experience as evidence of performance. The logic inside PRAGATI echoed this shift. Real-world functioning began to matter more than file-based compliance. Execution quality started gaining weight equal to project approval, and grievance patterns became a barometer of infrastructure performance rather than a parallel administrative burden.

This lifecycle positioning gave PRAGATI a distinct governance character. It nudged institutions to accept that infrastructure does not end at commissioning and that public systems cannot function as fragmented silos where one agency builds, another operates, and none carry visible continuity responsibility. The platform created a recordable link between planning decisions, execution behaviour, and public outcomes. It redefined how time, responsibility, and performance are interpreted inside the State’s infrastructure governance process.

2.3 Administrative Behaviour and Decision Culture

PRAGATI altered the rhythm of administrative conduct by shifting the consequence perception inside government departments. Earlier, delays circulated within files and internal notes, and the accountability environment remained diffused. With PRAGATI, appearance before the review became a visible event and the Oxford Saïd Business School case described how the simple “risk of appearing before the platform” created pressure discipline across ministries. The platform turned monitoring into an institutional signal rather than a procedural step. It pushed officers to prepare, resolve, coordinate, and anticipate issues before escalation.

The same case documented that PRAGATI enabled the acceleration of “over 340 critical projects worth $205 billion.” This volume did not move because digital screens existed, but because administrative behaviour shifted toward readiness and quicker response. The culture of waiting for clearance or allowing procedural ambiguity to linger began decreasing. Decision loops shortened, files moved faster, and silence stopped functioning as a bureaucratic buffer.

The platform also influenced structural decision design. The documented example of an “electronic drawing approval system” in the railway sector demonstrated that PRAGATI was forcing institutions to rewire internal processes instead of merely reporting them. That shift showed that monitoring had begun triggering procedural redesign. Systems that were earlier rule-heavy and paperwork dependent started transitioning into operational workflows aligned with digital traceability and faster approval paths.

This new behaviour created a different administrative posture. Meetings became evidence based, timelines no longer floated as flexible suggestions, and unresolved issues became reputational liabilities. Officers began engaging with interdepartmental coordination to pre-empt escalations rather than reacting after institutional friction emerged. The platform made decision culture visible, and visibility influenced conduct.

The environment created by PRAGATI formed an administrative psychology where delay became a defensible act rather than a neutral condition. The platform’s presence converted governance from a passive compliance structure into a monitored execution field where performance, preparation, and response time shaped institutional credibility.

3. Analytical Review: Project Monitoring Group PMG in Infrastructure Governance

3.1 Institutional Mandate

PMG entered the governance space as a corrective layer to unresolved administrative friction, and its placement under DPIIT reflects an institutional intent to formalise coordination and create a structured mechanism for resolving implementation bottlenecks in large national projects (DPIIT, n.d.). The eligibility criteria that require a minimum project value of ₹500 crore, along with the provision that strategic projects can enter the framework irrespective of cost, demonstrate that the mechanism is positioned to operate in the zone of high-value and system-impact infrastructure rather than routine development works (DPIIT, n.d.). This threshold functions as a signal that the platform is not built for incremental reporting, but for governance intervention where delays compromise national timelines, capital allocation, economic targets, and public infrastructure outcomes.

The PMG format allows project proponents to register issues directly into the system, converting what was earlier an informal negotiation process with multiple agencies into a documented escalation pipeline recognised by the State as legitimate and requiring resolution (DPIIT, n.d.). This structure reduces the asymmetry traditionally experienced by private and public project developers who previously navigated fragmented approval routes, unclear timelines, and untraceable decision pathways. The institutional logic therefore positions PMG as a convening authority rather than a passive registry. It pulls ministries, state agencies, regulatory authorities, and project entities into a single procedural field where coordination becomes a responsibility rather than discretionary cooperation.

By creating this escalation environment, PMG shifts the governance culture from reactive approval management to structured facilitation. It builds space for the State to act as a problem-solving actor and not merely as a sanctioning authority. In earlier governance cycles, slow-moving files or fragmented jurisdictional authority often froze implementation phases while no single entity technically owned the delay. Under the PMG model, unresolved clearances, stalled permissions, or procedural gaps sit visible within the escalation chain, and this visibility assigns implicit responsibility to administrative actors (DPIIT, n.d.). The presence of a central node creates predictability. It reduces procedural ambiguity and signals that once a project meets criteria and enters the PMG governance field, the State assumes an obligation to support progress rather than leave implementation vulnerability entirely on the proponents.

The institutional presence of PMG therefore reflects a governance shift similar to the evolving discipline visible in PRAGATI. While both platforms behave differently in scope and interaction rhythm, PMG operates in the same strategic direction of making infrastructure governance more structured, accountable, and navigable. The platform embodies a recognition that national-scale infrastructure cannot rely only on ministry-driven timelines or state-level coordination, and that bottlenecks require systemic rather than individual resolution. The mandate framework shows the State acknowledging the cost of delay and creating institutional response mechanisms to prevent institutional drift and administrative invisibility inside the project lifecycle (DPIIT, n.d.).

3.2 Process Architecture

The process architecture of PMG is built around escalation logic rather than passive registration. Issues enter through a digital interface where project proponents upload delays, pending clearances or unresolved procedural hurdles, and once entered, the matter does not remain a static record but begins moving through timed administrative checkpoints that determine who must respond and by when (DPIIT, n.d.). The structure relies on a layered review cycle where the first level sits at departmental or state authority, and if unresolved, the case progresses upward into higher administrative zones where resolution capacity increases along with pressure. The periodicity of review acts as a forcing mechanism. It prevents delays from disappearing into paperwork or remaining dormant inside jurisdictional conflict. The system records the history of each escalation and the pace at which agencies respond, building a digital accountability trail that creates behavioural pressure even without explicit penal provisions (DPIIT, n.d.).

Over time, the mechanism evolved from a reactive troubleshooting system into a predictive monitoring environment where milestones and expected timelines are logged in advance, allowing the platform to detect when a project is deviating from its intended implementation pace. This shift is important because it reduces the dependence on complaints or formal requests to trigger administrative intervention. Instead, the system itself identifies risk points before they convert into operational delay. The milestone-based workflow means that a pending clearance or a stalled approval begins appearing not as isolated administrative lag but as an emerging governance concern flagged digitally against predetermined progress expectations (DPIIT, n.d.). This structure aligns with the broader governance transition seen in platforms like PRAGATI where visibility and traceability are treated as behavioural tools capable of influencing administrative tempo. PMG therefore operates in a system where monitoring is not retrospective reporting but a continuous act of supervision. The architecture introduces a procedural rhythm that discourages bureaucratic silence and normalises scheduled decision-making grounded in traceable, digitally recorded progress behaviour.

3.3 Scope and Current Limits

PMG operates in a space defined by scale, not scattered interventions, and the numbers themselves reveal that positioning. The platform currently tracks 2,795 projects valued at ₹68.12 lakh crore and has documented the resolution of 7,768 issues, placing it firmly inside the strategic infrastructure domain rather than routine development administration (DPIIT, n.d.). The activity window between January 2024 and January 2025 adds another layer to this operational footprint, showing that 693 issues across 353 projects worth ₹13.88 lakh crore were resolved within a single monitoring period, indicating continuity in system function rather than episodic usage (DPIIT, n.d.). The volume suggests that PMG has become a recognised escalation route within the governance system and that ministries, state entities and project proponents now treat it as a legitimate mechanism for clearing administrative hurdles.

The scope of coverage is heavily skewed toward physical infrastructure categories such as transport corridors, energy projects, industrial estates and logistics networks, where implementation delays generate cascading losses across supply chains and public financing cycles. This confirms that the function of PMG is tied to asset creation and capital deployment phases rather than operational and lifecycle oversight. The mechanism focuses on clearing construction pathways, synchronising regulatory actions and enabling project commissioning rather than interrogating how completed infrastructure performs once operational. The system logic therefore remains situated at the delivery end of governance where implementation success is equated with commissioning milestones, not functionality over time.

This boundary creates a visible gap. Once a project exits the commissioning stage, PMG disengages and the asset moves into a governance vacuum where utilisation levels, maintenance practices, compliance failures, climate vulnerabilities, cyber risk, or deterioration patterns are not monitored under the same integrated structure. The absence of this continuity means infrastructure governance in India still operates with a split personality. One part is digitally monitored, time-bound, escalatory and intervention capable. The other part shifts back into dispersed oversight where no single platform tracks durability, operational performance or resilience value. For strategic infrastructure, this disconnect weakens long-term governance continuity and limits the system’s ability to respond to operational fragility, cost overruns during lifecycle maintenance, or failures emerging after commissioning.

PMG therefore sits in a critical position. Its current scope confirms it is an enabler of delivery, not yet a custodian of performance. The system’s strength lies in its ability to push projects across the threshold of completion, but its limits appear once infrastructure transitions into live public use where accountability, risk management and performance monitoring remain outside the same structure. This structural asymmetry indicates that the evolution of infrastructure governance in India is still incomplete, operating in silos where execution is monitored sharply and operation remains fragmented.

3.4 Case Application The J&K PMG System

Jammu and Kashmir presents one of the clearest sub-national demonstrations of how the PMG framework behaves when embedded into a regional governance ecosystem rather than functioning only as a Union-level escalation instrument. The Planning Development and Monitoring Department positioned the PMG workflow as part of its core planning and execution mandate, which means the system was not treated as an external review forum but absorbed into routine administrative practice (PD&MD-PMG, n.d.). Once integrated, the mechanism began shaping how large-scale public works were coordinated across sectors that carry not just developmental relevance but strategic and geopolitical weight in the region.

The case reflects an environment where projects linked to border connectivity, public service infrastructure, centrally financed schemes and critical utilities entered a coordinated monitoring structure that enabled periodic reviews, escalation and cross-department engagement. This helped soften one of the historical frictions in the region: the long administrative pause between sanction and execution. The digital reporting layer and review cadence meant departments could no longer isolate their roles or extend delays without explanation. The mechanism effectively introduced a shared operational space where implementation progress was visible across multiple agencies and resolution became a shared administrative expectation rather than a siloed responsibility (PD&MD-PMG, n.d.).

However, the structure carries the same limitation observed at the national platform level. The monitoring cycle ends at delivery. Post-commissioning, there is no continuity chain for tracking utilisation efficiency, degradation, exposure to climate stressors, cyber vulnerabilities, or interdependency risk across linked infrastructure networks. In a region like Jammu and Kashmir, where infrastructure intersects with national security architecture, service accessibility, civilian confidence and operational continuity, this gap carries weight. The absence of lifecycle oversight means that once an asset is inaugurated, it shifts into a governance blind zone where failures or inefficiencies surface only after disruption rather than being identified through forward monitoring.

The J&K deployment of PMG therefore demonstrates a partial institutional transformation. The system has succeeded in regulating implementation behaviour by creating visibility, cadence and escalation, but it has not yet evolved into a framework capable of supporting long-term asset resilience or continuity management. The case shows both progress and structural incompleteness. It reflects a region adopting modern oversight approaches for project delivery while still relying on fragmented legacy mechanisms to govern infrastructure once commissioned, even though the context demands sustained monitoring and resilience thinking.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for Governance Evolution

Schematic representation of the proposed governance evolution pathway. The figure shows the transition from current implementation-focused oversight to an integrated national asset governance model incorporating lifecycle monitoring, resilience thresholds and continuity-based decision systems aligned with the BNRI framework.

4. Critical Analysis and Way Forward Toward a National Framework of Asset Governance

The emergence of PRAGATI and PMG marks a visible shift in how the Indian State approaches infrastructure administration. A governance culture that historically treated project delays as bureaucratic inevitability is now being challenged by platforms that create visibility, create pressure, and institutionalise pace. The shift is structural but not yet systemic. Both platforms occupy the early phase of a governance transition where execution is finally getting monitored, but operation and continuity remain largely unmanaged. The present architecture is decisive in creating implementation discipline but still lacks a national framework that treats infrastructure as a long-term public asset with defined performance expectations, lifecycle responsibilities, degradation thresholds, risk sensitivity, and resilience mandates.

From a critical governance standpoint, the system remains execution heavy and continuity thin. PRAGATI introduced leadership-linked behavioural oversight, and PMG structured coordination for project delivery, but the absence of a national, legally framed lifecycle governance regime means that assets often fall into operational ambiguity once inaugurated. No uniform mechanism exists to track asset health, utilisation efficiency, cyber exposure, climate stress, redundancy requirements, interdependency mapping, or renewal cycles. These gaps are visible especially in strategic corridors, border infrastructure, electricity transmission networks, logistics gateways, public health systems and digital public infrastructure where service failure can cascade beyond administrative inconvenience into economic disruption or national security risk.

This is where the conversation must shift toward a national asset governance doctrine anchored in resilience logic. India will need a transition where project monitoring frameworks like PRAGATI and PMG evolve into a broader ecosystem that recognises infrastructure as part of a living system. The Bharat National Resilience Index (BNRI) will become relevant in such a phase. If developed as a national reference instrument, BNRI can define measurable benchmarks for resilience performance across sectors and geographies. Instead of counting sanctioned and completed assets, the system could evaluate response capability, recovery time, service continuity, adaptive capacity and security posture. Such a framework would shift the State’s role from a builder of infrastructure to a manager of national capability.

A future national framework could therefore integrate three layers. The first layer is execution oversight where platforms like PMG and PRAGATI already function. The second is operational governance where asset performance, interdependency risks and digital-physical vulnerabilities are monitored continuously. The third is resilience and renewal governance where lifecycle planning, retrofitting, redundancy, cyber resilience, climate adaptation and decommissioning are governed through standards rather than discretionary institutional intelligence.

India is positioned at an inflection point. The governance mechanisms exist in fragments, the data systems are emerging, administrative coordination culture is shifting, and the need for resilience is no longer theoretical but visible in power disruptions, communication blackouts, weather-linked failures and operational choke points. The next phase requires institutionalising continuity, embedding accountability beyond commissioning, and constructing a governance architecture where resilience is measurable and enforceable.

PRAGATI and PMG demonstrate that the administrative system can adapt when visibility and consequence exist. The next step is to build a national asset governance ecosystem that can protect, renew, and sustain these assets across their full operational life. Only then does infrastructure move from being built to being secured.

REFERENCES

Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. (n.d.). Project Monitoring Group brochure. DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. https://pmg.dpiit.gov.in/static/media/Project%20Monitoring%20Group%20Brochure.39f4c288.pdf

Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. (2024, December 3). PRAGATI: Driving development & accountability. Press Information Bureau. https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-12/Pragati_Report_2024_digital.pdf

Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI). (2024). Project governance and implementation metrics in India. https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/Kpmg1.pdf

News Updates. (2015, March 25). PM launches PRAGATI: A multi-purpose, multi-modal platform for Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation. https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/pm-launches-pragati-a-multi-purpose-multi-modal-platform-for-pro-active-governance-and-timely-implementation/

Oxford Saïd Business School & Gates Foundation. (2024). From gridlock to growth: How leadership enables India’s PRAGATI ecosystem to power progress (Case Study). https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/news/how-indias-pragati-digital-platform-has-accelerated-its-infrastructure-revolution-said-business-school-gates-foundation-case-study

Planning Development & Monitoring Department (PD&MD-PMG) (. (n.d.). Pragati and Project Monitoring Group (PMG) framework. Government of Jammu & Kashmir. Retrieved from https://jkplanning.gov.in/pdf/pmg.pdf

Press Information Bureau. (2015). PM launches PRAGATI: A multi-purpose, multi-modal platform for Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation. https://archive.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=117685