Q.7 E-governance projects have a built-in bias towards technology and back-end integration than user-centric designs. Examine. (Answer in 150 words) – 10 marks

Introduction
E-governance in India has been championed through initiatives like the National e-Governance Plan (2006) and Digital India (2015). The goal is to make services accessible, efficient, and transparent. Yet, in practice, many projects show a bias towards technology and back-end integration—databases, platforms, biometrics—rather than citizen experience and inclusivity. This undermines the democratic promise of digital governance.

Why the Bias Exists

• Supply-driven approach: Projects are often designed to meet digitisation targets (e.g., number of records digitised), rather than user satisfaction.
• Technocratic dominance: IT vendors and government departments prioritise technology architecture over citizen feedback.
• Top-down design: Minimal involvement of local communities in planning makes systems less intuitive.

Illustrative Examples

• Aadhaar-enabled welfare schemes: Strong back-end integration (biometric authentication, DBT) reduced leakages, but user issues like fingerprint mismatch excluded vulnerable groups from rations and pensions.
• Aarogya Setu app (2020): A powerful COVID-19 tracker, but limited language support and smartphone requirements left out many rural users.
• Bhoomi project, Karnataka: Digitised land records curbed corruption, but interface complexity forced farmers to depend on middlemen, reducing user benefit.
• Digital courts and e-filing: Integration is advanced, but poor digital literacy among lawyers and litigants often makes access difficult.

Consequences of Tech Bias

• Exclusion of vulnerable groups (elderly, rural poor, digitally illiterate).
• Language and accessibility barriers in many platforms.
• Reinforcement of the digital divide: NFHS-5 shows only ~37% rural households have internet access.

Way Forward

• User-Centric Design (UCD): Co-create services with citizens; prioritise local languages and accessibility features.
• Digital literacy programs: Expand PMGDISHA to bridge usage gaps.
• Multi-channel access: Combine apps with kiosks, call centres, SMS, and assisted models.
• Inclusivity standards: Mandate adoption of Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW 3.0).
• Impact evaluation: Measure success by citizen satisfaction and inclusiveness, not just digital numbers.

Conclusion
E-governance is most effective when technology serves people, not the reverse. India’s experience shows that robust back-end systems must be balanced with inclusive, user-friendly, and citizen-focused designs to ensure that digital governance truly advances equity, transparency, and trust.

Q.17 “In contemporary development models, decision-making and problem-solving responsibilities are not located close to the source of information and execution, defeating the objectives of development.” Critically evaluate. (Answer in 250 words) – 15 marks

Introduction
Modern development often relies on centralised, top-down planning and technocratic models. While they aim for efficiency and scale, critics argue that when decision-making is far removed from the people and places where problems actually occur, development outcomes often fail to meet local needs. This is the central concern of the statement.

Why Distance Between Decision-Makers and Ground Realities Matters

1. Information Gap
   • Local problems are best understood by communities themselves.
   • Centralised bodies often rely on aggregate data, missing granular realities.
   • Example: Centrally designed crop insurance schemes (PMFBY) sometimes misjudge risks as local variations in rainfall/pests are overlooked.
2. Implementation Mismatch
   • Policies designed in Delhi or state capitals may not account for regional ecology, culture, or institutions.
   • Example: Large dam projects (Narmada, Tehri) designed for national growth caused displacement and ecological loss because local voices were marginalised.
3. Accountability Deficit
   • When authority is centralised, citizens find it difficult to hold decision-makers accountable.
   • Local bodies, by contrast, are more accessible.

Contemporary Evidence of Centralisation

• Urban development missions (Smart Cities, AMRUT): Criticised for being consultant-driven with limited citizen participation.
• EIA 2020 Draft: Allegedly weakened local consent, privileging corporate interests.
• Digital governance: Big data solutions designed centrally may exclude those with low digital literacy.

Positive Aspects of Centralisation

• Economies of scale: Large infrastructure projects (highways, digital networks) need centralised funding and planning.
• National integration: GST and UID-Aadhaar standardised fragmented systems, improving efficiency.
• Disaster management: Central agencies (NDMA, IMD) provide expertise and coordination beyond local capacity.

Way Forward – Towards Balanced Federalism

1. Strengthen decentralisation: Empower Panchayats/Municipalities under the 73rd & 74th Amendments for planning and monitoring.
2. Participatory planning: Social audits (MGNREGA), Gram Sabha consultations in Scheduled Areas (PESA Act).
3. Technology for localisation: GIS, local dashboards, and e-governance tools should be adapted to community needs.
4. Co-production of policies: Blend central expertise with local knowledge (e.g., Kerala’s participatory planning model).

Conclusion
Excessive centralisation often defeats development’s purpose—empowering people and improving well-being. A “subsidiarity approach”—decisions taken at the closest competent level—offers the right balance: national vision with local participation, ensuring efficiency, inclusion, and sustainability.