OPINION EDITORIAL ON HERITAGE CREATIVE BEATS INTERALIA WIDE ANGLE OTHER VIEW ART SPACE

Better administration, not bigger budgets alone!

Persistent problems faced by citizens often do not result from inadequate budgets. They stem from administrative gaps— inconsistent enforcement, weak supervision, poor coordination, and lack of accountability

In public discourse, development is frequently equated with higher allocations, ambitious announcements, and large-scale infrastructure projects. Budget speeches are often judged by the magnitude of financial outlays. Departments measure progress in crores sanctioned, projects inaugurated, and tenders floated. Roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, drainage systems, and power infrastructure undeniably require funding. No society can progress without investment.

Yet, if governance is assessed not by announcements but by everyday experience, a different reality emerges. Persistent problems faced by citizens often do not result from inadequate budgets. They stem from administrative gaps— inconsistent enforcement, weak supervision, poor coordination, and lack of accountability. In such cases, the solution may not lie in larger budgets, but in better administration.

The Death of Drinking Water in a Water-Rich Land

Language, Identity, and Cultural Survival

Mathematics in Ramadan:  From Crescent Disputes to Calendar Certainty

This distinction is critical. Financial investment builds capacity; administration ensures that capacity functions effectively.

Planning and development are routine and necessary exercises of governance. Departments prepare proposals, secure approvals, and mobilize funds for projects intended to improve public life. These institutional processes deserve recognition. However, before seeking additional allocations, it is equally important to evaluate whether existing systems are operating to their full potential. Are the resources already created being managed efficiently? Are rules enforced consistently? Are performance indicators clearly defined and monitored?

Without addressing these questions, even well-funded projects risk underperforming.

Take the example of traffic congestion at Shalteng Crossing in Srinagar. Daily commuters experience prolonged delays, particularly during peak hours. The immediate response often revolves around infrastructural expansion—proposals to widen the junction, redesign traffic flow, or construct a flyover. While such measures may be justified after careful assessment, a closer look suggests that behavioral patterns and enforcement gaps significantly contribute to congestion.

Passenger vehicles frequently halt mid-road to pick up and drop off commuters. Autos and minibuses stop at busy junctions. Private vehicles park irregularly near intersections. Although traffic personnel are deployed, violations continue with little deterrence. The result is predictable gridlock.

Before allocating substantial funds for structural redesign, a focused administrative experiment could be conducted. For a limited period—say ten days—strict and consistent enforcement could be implemented. Vehicles stopping mid-road could face immediate penalties. Designated stopping points could be clearly marked and enforced. Traffic personnel could be monitored for compliance.

If congestion significantly reduces during this period, it would indicate that managerial intervention—not capital expenditure—was the primary requirement. If congestion persists despite strict enforcement, structural redesign may indeed be justified. Such a phased approach ensures public funds are deployed efficiently and only after administrative remedies........

© Kashmir Images