The Art of Building the Wrong Things

 The Art of Building the Wrong Things

“We continue to build what can wait while neglecting what cannot. Somewhere between planning and execution, public priorities lose their way.”

Peerzada Mohsin Shafi

Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed considerable infrastructure development, with roads, bridges, public buildings and other facilities being constructed across the Union Territory. Such investment is essential in a region where difficult terrain, harsh winters and geographical constraints make connectivity and public services particularly important. Yet the value of development cannot be measured by the number of structures built. It must be judged by whether public investments address genuine needs and improve people's lives. Too often, the urgency of a project appears less important than the ability to execute it.

The problem is not infrastructure development itself, but the priorities guiding it. A structure may look impressive upon completion, yet its real worth lies in the problem it solves. When a facility remains largely unused while an essential project stays incomplete for years, concerns arise over whether public money has been directed towards the most pressing needs.

In Anantnag, an overhead footbridge was reportedly constructed within a short period, yet it appears to have little utility, with pedestrians rarely seen using it. Meanwhile, the upgradation of a nearby motorable bridge, where limited space makes it difficult for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass smoothly, has reportedly remained pending for years. The contrast illustrates a wider concern about how competing infrastructure needs are prioritised. Although the two structures serve different purposes, the situation highlights the importance of assessing actual demand, existing bottlenecks and expected public benefits before committing funds. A project should not be considered successful merely because it has been completed quickly.

The issue extends beyond a single location. Across towns and villages, infrastructure priorities should reflect the urgency of the problem, the number of people affected and the benefits an investment is expected to deliver. Beautification projects, decorative fountains and ornamental installations can improve public spaces, but their value becomes questionable when they fall into disrepair while drainage, road maintenance, water supply and other essential services continue to demand attention. Such projects are not inherently wasteful. However, their justification, maintenance costs and public benefits deserve the same scrutiny as any other expenditure.

The consequences of poor prioritisation are also visible in official audit findings. In its Composite Audit Report on Jammu and Kashmir, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India examined projects funded under the Central Road and Infrastructure Fund. The report recorded that 93 existing road projects remained incomplete while 84 new projects were sanctioned between 2017 and 2019. Of those new projects, 82 were also incomplete by March 2022. The CAG noted that ₹228.36 crore released for the new projects could have been used to execute and complete the existing 93 projects and identified inadequate prioritisation as a contributing factor. This does not mean that every new project was unnecessary. It does, however, demonstrate how inadequate sequencing and competing commitments can leave public works unfinished while available resources remain stretched.

Another concern emerged from a report published in January 2022, which stated that a departmental exercise had identified nearly 2,000 abandoned school buildings across Jammu and Kashmir reportedly constructed without an actual requirement. The figure and the circumstances surrounding these buildings warrant examination through the original departmental records. If public buildings were constructed without adequately establishing demand, the resulting expenditure would reflect a failure to connect planning with actual service requirements. Infrastructure is not an achievement simply because a building stands on the ground. Its value depends on whether it serves a genuine purpose.

This distinction is central to responsible public spending. A project can be technically feasible, financially sanctioned and successfully constructed without representing the best use of public money. Technical feasibility establishes whether something can be built. It does not establish whether it should be built, whether it is needed at that location or whether it deserves priority over competing requirements.

Every significant infrastructure proposal should therefore begin with a clearly identified public problem supported by evidence. Departments should assess existing facilities, establish the scale of demand, estimate the number of beneficiaries and examine alternative solutions. Where appropriate, upgrading an existing bridge should be evaluated alongside constructing a new one. A public building should be justified by actual demand, while a beautification project should be assessed against competing civic needs and its long-term maintenance costs. The objective should be to select the option that delivers the greatest public benefit, not simply the option that is easiest to approve or execute.

International practices offer useful lessons. The United Kingdom's Green Book requires public spending proposals to consider objectives, costs, benefits and alternative options. Norway's State Project Model incorporates independent quality assurance for major investments. Jammu and Kashmir could adapt these principles to strengthen the appraisal of significant public projects. Proposals should demonstrate a clear need, compare feasible alternatives and account for long term costs before approval.

Scrutiny must also continue during construction. Delays, cost escalation, design changes and missing connecting infrastructure can undermine even a well-planned project. Before work begins, authorities should ensure that designs are finalised, land and statutory permissions are secured, funding is realistically available and essential components are planned together. Significant changes in cost, scope or timelines should trigger a documented review. Public accountability should not end once a contract is awarded or a foundation stone is laid.

Equally important is an assessment after completion. Every significant public infrastructure project should be evaluated to establish whether it is being used, whether it has achieved its stated purpose and whether the benefits justify the expenditure. Assessments should examine actual usage, service quality, accessibility, safety and maintenance. Where a facility remains underused, the reasons should be investigated. Poor design, inconvenient access, changing demand or inadequate public awareness may explain the outcome. Where evidence shows that the original need was misjudged, corrective action and accountability should follow.

Transparency can make this process more effective. Jammu and Kashmir would benefit from a public register of infrastructure projects disclosing their purpose, estimated cost, funding source, approval date, expected completion date and current status. Completed projects should include basic information about operational performance and maintenance. Where a new project is prioritised while an older and more urgent work remains incomplete, the department concerned should explain the decision publicly. District level priority registers could further identify unsafe bridges, damaged roads, drainage failures, water shortages and incomplete essential connections according to public safety, the number of people affected and the consequences of delay. New proposals should be assessed against these priorities before funds are committed.

The aim is not to discourage construction or dismiss every project that attracts limited use. Some infrastructure provides benefits that are not immediately visible, while beautification also has a legitimate place in public development. The requirement is a system in which decisions are evidence based, alternatives are compared, priorities are explained and outcomes are independently assessed. In a region facing substantial geographical and infrastructural challenges, misplaced priorities carry a real opportunity cost. Completing a critical road, improving drainage or upgrading an existing bridge may sometimes deliver greater immediate benefit than a more conspicuous project.

Development cannot be measured simply by the number of structures built, the value of contracts awarded or the projects inaugurated. It must be measured by safer travel, better access to essential services and tangible improvements in everyday life. Every major investment should have a clearly established public purpose and should be able to demonstrate why it deserved priority.

Jammu and Kashmir does not merely need more infrastructure. It needs stronger scrutiny before construction, accountability during execution and honest evaluation after completion. The true measure of progress is not how quickly a structure rises, but how meaningfully it serves the public.

Because the real art of development lies not in building more, but in knowing what matters most.