Water is a basic human necessity, and its absence affects the poorest most severely. In large swathes of rural India, vanishing groundwater tables and erratic rainfall have left villages dry. Against this backdrop, government initiatives like Nal Se Jal, under the broader Jal Jeevan Mission, hold the potential to deliver transformative change. Yet, the promise of universal tap water access has been repeatedly undercut by overstated claims, funding shortfalls, and persistent structural problems.
The Jal Jeevan Mission, launched in 2019, seeks to provide functional household tap connections to every rural household in India. The goal is to ensure a daily supply of 55 litres of potable water per person that meets BIS:10500 quality norms. The scheme, with a total outlay of ₹3.6 lakh crore, had an ambitious completion deadline of 2024. Of this, ₹2.08 lakh crore was to come from the central government.
READ | Monsoon 2025: Timely rain could reset inflation, rural demand
By the government’s own count, the scheme has expanded its reach from 3 crore households to over 15.6 crore. However, the original timeline has slipped. The finance minister recently revised the completion target to 2028, with another 4 crore households yet to be covered. This year’s allocation of ₹67,000 crore suggests intent, but funding alone will not resolve the deeper issues plaguing the programme.
Crunching the numbers
While the government’s narrative focuses on coverage milestones, the fiscal reality tells a different story. According to the expenditure finance committee, the finance ministry has sanctioned only ₹1.51 lakh crore for the mission so far—less than half of the budgeted amount. Despite the scale of the problem, the finance ministry has recently indicated that it will not commit additional funds. This not only casts doubt over the revised 2028 deadline but also raises questions about the long-term sustainability of infrastructure already built.
Moreover, financial audits and inspection reports point to widespread irregularities in fund utilisation by state governments, who are the scheme’s primary implementers. Such lapses undermine public trust and raise doubts about the efficacy of decentralised delivery models in the absence of robust monitoring mechanisms. Without course correction, funding gaps and execution failures will continue to stall progress.
Access vs usage: A misleading metric
Perhaps the most significant gap in the Jal Jeevan Mission lies not in infrastructure creation but in functionality. While nearly 90% of rural households now have access to tap connections, only 39% use them as their primary water source, according to the 79th round of the National Sample Survey. In states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, and Odisha, usage levels remain abysmally low—ranging between 6% and 30%. These figures signal a deeper operational dysfunction.
The discrepancy stems from a number of issues: Irregular water supply, inadequate pressure, faulty plumbing, and poor-quality infrastructure. Tap connections that do not deliver usable water cannot be counted as functional. Moreover, because the scheme focuses primarily on installation metrics, it glosses over the lived reality of water access and reliability. The challenge is not just building infrastructure but making it work in everyday life.
Systemic bottlenecks in local governance
Although the mission is designed to foster decentralised, community-led water governance, implementation remains top-heavy and disconnected from ground realities. Local institutions—panchayats and village water committees—are expected to maintain infrastructure without adequate financial or technical capacity. The legacy of centralised control persists, limiting their role to paper oversight while decision-making power and funds remain with state and central agencies.
Furthermore, the data available in official dashboards is flawed. The scheme continues to rely on the 2011 Census for household counts, ignoring the demographic expansion of the past 14 years. In many areas, connections are counted even when households remain dry. Compounding the problem is the absence of a grievance redressal mechanism. Citizens have no effective way to report faulty installations or irregular supply, allowing failures to accumulate silently.
Climate stress, social barriers
The challenge is magnified by climate variability. Erratic rainfall, falling groundwater levels, and disrupted hydrological cycles make water availability less predictable. Infrastructure built without climate resilience—leaky pipes, broken taps, unreliable treatment plants—quickly degrades, especially when repair and maintenance are sporadic or entirely absent. These are not isolated lapses but a systemic consequence of under-resourced rural governance.
Socioeconomic inequalities further complicate the problem. Households located farther from overhead tanks often experience poor water pressure. Marginalised groups, including Dalits and Adivasis, frequently live in such peripheral areas and face compounded exclusion. Their limited participation in system maintenance—as plumbers, pump operators, or water quality monitors—further restricts the scheme’s efficacy. Meanwhile, traditional water sources like handpumps and open wells continue to degrade, pushing vulnerable communities into deeper water insecurity.
The way ahead
The Jal Jeevan Mission, for all its scale and ambition, cannot succeed by infrastructure alone. It must integrate technology with institutional reform and social inclusion. A credible reform path would begin with updated household data, perhaps through a dedicated national water census. Next, the Centre must reverse its recent reluctance to fund the scheme and ensure predictable financial support through 2028. Third, state governments must be held accountable through real-time audits, not just end-of-year reporting.
Equally crucial is building capacity at the grassroots. Local bodies need autonomy, funds, and technical know-how to manage water systems. This includes ensuring representation of marginalised groups in operational roles and building robust feedback loops through grievance platforms. Finally, climate resilience must become a core design principle—so that systems can cope with volatility, not collapse under it.
Without these interventions, official claims of 90% rural coverage will remain a statistical illusion—one that masks both functionality failures and rising rural distress. Jal Jeevan Mission can still become the success story it was meant to be, but only if it learns to measure what truly matters.