Between Celebration and Cost
Escalation
“Amid the joy of revival and the belief that
it is better late than never, escalating costs stand as a reminder that delay
carries a price.”
Peerzada Mohsin Shafi
After a prolonged and uncertain
journey spanning several years, the recent approval by the Union Government for
the construction of the Singhpora–Vailoo and Sudhmahadev–Dranga twin tube
tunnels has rekindled hope across Jammu and Kashmir. Nearly four years ago,
detailed project reports were prepared. Four years later, bids were invited.
About two years ago, tenders were annulled. This was followed by over a year of
rumours suggesting that the projects had been abandoned altogether. In this
backdrop, the latest approval has brought relief to stakeholders and revived
confidence that these long-awaited projects will finally take shape, with
tenders expected to be floated soon.
These tunnels go far beyond
being mere engineering works. At present, NH-44 remains the primary corridor
connecting the Kashmir Valley with the rest of the country, yet it passes
through highly complex geological terrain. Despite efforts to widen and
strengthen the highway, inherent vulnerabilities remain. Even light rainfall
triggers landslides, leading to frequent disruptions. Numerous bypasses have
been constructed, yet new weak points emerge every year. What appears stable in
one year often becomes vulnerable in the next. In practical terms, NH-44 cannot
be reliably termed an all-weather road. With increasing traffic, even the
four-lane configuration is proving insufficient. Ideally, it should have been
six-laned as suggested in various Detailed Project Reports, but terrain
constraints, environmental limitations and high costs make that impractical.
Nature, in this case, sets clear limits.
In this context, the
Singhpora–Vailoo and Sudhmahadev–Dranga tunnels become vital missing links.
They will strengthen the alternative corridor via NH-244, which starts at
Nashri and runs through Doda and Kishtwar before connecting to Anantnag. Work
on NH-244 is already progressing in phases. The Khanabal–Vailoo stretch is
largely complete. Construction from the Kishtwar side is in full swing. Pending
works such as the Drabshala tunnel, which was earlier abandoned, have now been
re-tendered and will resume. Other stretches are also under execution. The
four-lanning of the remaining 8.9 km from the Anantnag side has been tendered
and two-lane sections will be upgraded. The Singhpora–Vailoo tunnel will bypass
the treacherous Sinthan Pass, which remains closed for long periods due to
snowfall, reducing distance and ensuring safer and more reliable connectivity.
Improved interconnectivity between the Chenab region and the Kashmir Valley
will also boost economic activity, tourism and regional integration.
Despite these clear and far-reaching benefits,
the projects have suffered prolonged and avoidable delays since their initial
approval during the PDP-BJP regime. What should have been a time-bound
infrastructure push instead turned into a drawn-out process marked by
administrative indecision and procedural setbacks. The cancellation of earlier
tenders on administrative grounds not only halted momentum but also created a
vacuum of uncertainty. Over time, this uncertainty translated into negative
perception, weakening stakeholder confidence and reinforcing the belief that
these projects might never materialize.
While the recent approval under the NH(O) scheme,
originally conceived under the Bharatmala Pariyojna, has brought widespread
happiness and relief, with the news resonating across stakeholders and regions,
restoring direction and making execution appear imminent, the financial
consequences of this prolonged delay are both evident and significant. The numbers
tell a compelling story. The civil cost of the Singhpora–Vailoo tunnel has
risen from ₹3253.58 crore to ₹3567.51 crore, marking an 8.8 percent increase.
More significantly, the total project cost has escalated from ₹4807.97 crore to
₹5600.24 crore, reflecting a sharp 14.15 percent rise. A similar trend is
evident in the Sudhmahadev–Dranga project, where the civil cost has increased
from ₹2598.4 crore to ₹2765.71 crore, a rise of 6.05 percent, while the total
project cost has gone up from ₹3703.16 crore to ₹4179.18 crore, registering an
11.4 percent increase.
In absolute terms, the financial impact becomes
even more striking. The Singhpora–Vailoo project alone has witnessed a cost
escalation of ₹792.27 crore, while the Sudhmahadev–Dranga project has increased
by ₹476.02 crore. Combined, these two projects have imposed an additional
burden of approximately ₹1268.29 crore on the public exchequer. This is not
merely a statistical increase but a reflection of how time directly translates
into financial cost in infrastructure development.
Such escalations are rarely accidental. They are
the cumulative result of inflation in construction materials, rising labour
costs, changes in project specifications, and the compounding effect of delayed
decision-making. Each year of delay adds a new layer of financial burden,
turning originally viable estimates into significantly inflated commitments. In
this case, what could have been executed at a lower cost has now become
substantially more expensive without any proportional increase in scope or benefit.
This pattern is not unique to these tunnels but
is symptomatic of a broader issue in infrastructure planning and execution. The
cancellation of the proposed widening of the Khanabal–Pahalgam road, initially
estimated at around ₹1500 crore, reflects a similar trend. If revived in the
future, that project too will face escalated costs, further straining limited
public resources. Such repeated instances create a cycle where delays lead to
higher costs and higher costs reduce the capacity to undertake new projects.
From a financial standpoint, delayed
infrastructure is inefficient infrastructure. It locks capital into projects
that do not deliver timely returns while simultaneously inflating their
eventual cost. This weakens overall fiscal discipline and reduces the
effectiveness of public spending. In regions like Jammu and Kashmir, where
infrastructure plays a critical role in economic integration and growth, such
inefficiencies carry even greater consequences.
As these projects now move towards execution, the
priority must shift decisively from approval to delivery. Strict timelines,
institutional accountability, and efficient contract management are essential
to prevent further escalation. The
additional ₹1268 crore burden is not just an escalation on paper but a lost
opportunity, resources that could have been deployed towards other critical
infrastructure projects in the region. The lesson is clear and difficult to
ignore. While it is often said that better late than never, such delays come
with a measurable and often heavy cost.
Time in infrastructure is not neutral. Time is
expenditure. Time is escalation. Time is public money.
