Avinash Azad
A staggering Rs 3,534 crores have been spent under the Back to Village (B2V) programme in Jammu and Kashmir, raising serious concerns over the misuse of public funds in the name of rural development. Despite claims of bridging the gap between the administration and the people, questions have emerged over the efficacy and transparency of the programme.
According to official disclosures in response to queries raised by MLA Bahu Jammu, Ch. Vikram Randhawa, the government acknowledged that Rs 35,347.92 lakhs had been expended across five phases of B2V. Furthermore, out of 2,296 complaints received during the programme, 2,145 were reportedly addressed—raising concerns about the fate of the unresolved grievances and the actual impact of the funds utilized.
B2V: A Noble Initiative or a Financial Sinkhole?
Launched in 2019, the B2V programme aimed to strengthen grassroots governance, empower Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), engage citizens directly, and assess rural development needs. However, despite the grand objectives, reports indicate that vast sums have been allocated without clear accountability or demonstrable long-term impact.
The five phases of the programme were designed to ensure public participation in governance, yet reports of financial mismanagement and inadequate redressal of grievances have overshadowed its intended benefits. Critics argue that a significant portion of the funds may have been misused, with rural communities still struggling with basic infrastructure deficiencies, employment issues, and lack of access to welfare schemes.
Implementation Phases: A Closer Look
1. B2V Phase I (June 2019): Focused on energizing panchayats and gathering feedback on governance.
2. B2V Phase II (November 2019): Emphasized devolution of power to Panchayats and assessing their functionality.
3. B2V Phase III (October 2020): Aimed at full-scale implementation of social sector schemes and employment programs.
4. B2V Phase IV (October-November 2022): Focused on social and employment scheme saturation and citizen feedback.
5. B2V Phase V (November 2023): Aimed at bridging the gap between the government and the people with emphasis on infrastructure and economic empowerment.
Despite the structured phases, several reports from rural communities suggest that many promises remain unfulfilled, with villagers complaining of bureaucratic hurdles, ineffective implementation, and misallocation of resources.
Accountability and Transparency Under Scrutiny
The government’s claim that 2,145 out of 2,296 complaints were addressed raises serious concerns about the nature of these redressals. Were these grievances genuinely resolved, or were they merely closed without meaningful action? The lack of independent audits or third-party evaluations of the programme further deepens skepticism regarding the legitimacy of these figures.
Moreover, a closer look at district-wise fund allocation and utilization reveals inconsistencies, with some areas receiving substantial financial outlays without visible improvements in infrastructure, employment opportunities, or social welfare. This has led to allegations of fund diversion, ghost projects, and administrative negligence.
Public Outrage and Demand for Investigation
With mounting evidence of financial irregularities, citizens and opposition leaders are now demanding a thorough investigation into the utilization of funds. Calls for an independent audit, led by anti-corruption agencies and financial watchdogs, have gained momentum. “The government needs to be held accountable for where this money has gone. We still lack proper roads, drinking water facilities, and employment opportunities in many areas,” said a local resident from a remote village in Jammu.
Meanwhile, opposition parties have accused the administration of orchestrating a large-scale cover-up, demanding that the B2V programme undergo a forensic audit to determine the extent of financial mismanagement.
The Back to Village programme, envisioned as a transformative governance initiative, now finds itself embroiled in allegations of mismanagement and misuse of state exchequer. As more voices demand transparency, the government faces a crucial test—whether to ensure accountability through independent scrutiny or let yet another ambitious rural initiative fall victim to corruption and inefficiency. Only time will tell whether B2V has truly uplifted J&K’s rural communities or merely served as a conduit for financial malpractice.
