Breaking silos: The Modi approach to governance

Governments are usually judged by what they announce – a new policy, a welfare scheme, an infrastructure project or a reform. Less attention is paid to something equally important: how the Government itself works.

In Narendra Modi’s administrative journey, first in Gujarat and then at the Centre, this has been a recurring theme. Many of his interventions have involved changing the way officials, departments, States and the Centre work with one another.

This is where Modi’s idea of “Team India” becomes relevant. In administrative terms, it means getting the Centre and States around the same table, particularly when an issue cannot be handled by one Government or department alone.

The COVID-19 pandemic was the biggest test of that idea. India’s federal structure meant that the Centre could frame a broad response, but much of the actual work had to be carried out by State and district administrations. Modi held frequent meetings with Chief Ministers as the situation changed, discussing everything from containment and healthcare preparedness to vaccination. Later, the vaccination drive itself required coordination between the Union government, States, districts, healthcare workers and several other agencies.

Whatever disagreements arose during that difficult period, the experience demonstrated the sheer importance of Centre-State coordination in handling a crisis on such a scale. Some of that thinking has since acquired a more institutional form. The National Conference of Chief Secretaries, which began in 2022, brings the country’s senior-most State bureaucrats together with the Centre to discuss common priorities and implementation challenges. The value of such a forum is not necessarily in producing another set of recommendations. It lies in allowing States to compare experiences, learn from one another and discuss problems that often look very different from Delhi than they do on the ground.

There is another kind of silo that Modi has repeatedly tried to address – the walls within Government itself.

Government departments naturally tend to look at issues through the prism of their own responsibilities. But a highway project, for instance, may involve transport, railways, environment, power, State governments and local authorities. If each works independently, delays are almost inevitable.

Regular interactions between Secretaries and the Council of Ministers have sought to widen this conversation beyond individual ministries. Departmental discussions similarly bring ministers, officials and States together to look at a sector as a whole rather than as a collection of separate files.

This habit did not begin in Delhi.

As Gujarat Chief Minister, Modi used “Chintan Shivirs” to bring ministers and senior officials together for extended discussions on governance. The idea was to create room for conversation away from the daily pressure of files and departmental routines. Officials were encouraged to look beyond their immediate assignments and think about larger goals.

Technology became the other important part of this experiment. Gujarat saw early initiatives such as “e-Dhara”, which computerised land records, and “e-Gram”, which sought to bring services closer to villages. At the Centre, the use of technology has moved from digitising services to coordinating the Government itself. “PRAGATI” (Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation) is a unique example. Large projects often get delayed because several smaller issues remain stuck with different authorities. A clearance may be pending with one department, land with another agency and an approval with a State government. PRAGATI allows such projects to be reviewed with the relevant stakeholders together, making it easier to identify where the bottleneck actually lies.

PM “GatiShakti” applies a similar principle to infrastructure planning. For decades, different agencies could plan roads, railway lines, power networks and other infrastructure with limited visibility into what another department intended to do. Bringing these layers onto a common platform is meant to make planning less fragmented. But Modi’s administrative style has never relied on technology alone. There has also been a preference for direct review.

One can trace this back to Kutch after the 2001 earthquake. Reconstruction was an enormous administrative challenge. Modi, who became Gujarat Chief Minister later that year, repeatedly visited the affected areas and reviewed progress with officials and communities. The message was that reconstruction could not be understood only through reports arriving in Gandhinagar. There has to be that ground connect.

The same instinct is visible in his interactions with District Magistrates and Collectors as Prime Minister. Through video conferences, district officials have been asked directly about the implementation of schemes, difficulties they face and solutions that have worked locally. The 2017 interaction with Collectors and the 2022 discussions around Aspirational Districts are examples. During COVID too, Modi spoke directly with State and district officials involved in managing the pandemic.

There is an administrative advantage to such conversations. Information does not always travel upwards unchanged. Every additional layer can filter what reaches the top. Direct interaction with field officials offers senior policymakers another window into implementation. At the same time, a Collector working in a remote district gets a clearer sense of how a local target fits into a larger national programme.

There is also a geographical dimension to Modi’s governance style that is sometimes overlooked.

Delhi has traditionally been the natural stage for major Government announcements, official conferences and diplomatic engagements. Modi has consciously pushed some of these activities outside the capital.

The world’s largest health insurance scheme – “Ayushman Bharat” – was launched from Ranchi. The “Ujjwala Yojana” was launched from Ballia in Uttar Pradesh, while PM-Kisan was launched from Gorakhpur. These choices may appear symbolic, but symbolism has a place in governance. Launching a national programme from a State or district reinforces the idea that Delhi is not the sole centre of national public life. The annual DGP-IGP Conference offers another example. After 2014, the conference, traditionally associated with Delhi, began travelling to different parts of India.

There was a precedent in Gujarat here too. As Chief Minister, Modi took Republic Day celebrations and other important events beyond Gandhinagar to different districts. Even diplomacy has occasionally followed the same route. Xi Jinping and Shinzo Abe were hosted in Ahmedabad, Emmanuel Macron travelled with Modi to Varanasi, and Donald Trump was received in Ahmedabad. In each case, an Indian city other than Delhi became part of the country’s diplomatic stage.

None of these practices, taken alone, amounts to a revolution in governance. Nor does breaking a bureaucratic silo automatically guarantee that a policy will succeed. Governments must ultimately be judged by outcomes, not management techniques.

But over time, a pattern is visible in Modi’s administrative record. It is a preference for bringing people into the same room, using technology to expose bottlenecks, hearing directly from those implementing programmes and making the States active participants rather than distant recipients of decisions taken in Delhi. The larger change he has pursued is therefore not only about what Government does, but about how Government works.

In that sense, the historic 25-year journey can perhaps be summed up simply: from files to the field, from individual departments to a larger Team India, and from a Delhi-centric system to one that tries to bring the rest of the country into the room.

The author is a freelance journalist who covers politics; Views presented are personal.