Appendix H — Program Atlas
Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).
Read this chapter in the interactive reader, or download the full 601-page manifesto (PDF).
The People’s Model
Manifesto v2026
Volume III — Implementation Handbook
Appendix H — Program Atlas
Rural sector — sheets H.109–H.126 + H.223–H.225 + H.236 (v1.0)
Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).
Problem
Karnataka residents in rural blocks travel to the taluk centre for routine services. The cost in lost wages and dignity falls hardest on the poorest.
Program design
- Service Centre in every Gram Panchayat with trained operator.
- Assisted access to all top citizen-facing services on the People’s App.
- Offline-tolerant workflow for low-connectivity blocks.
- Auditable operator action log.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Backup: Karnataka State Rural Development & Panchayat Raj University
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹250-400 cr / year (operator wages + facility + tech)
Source: State Budget; 15th FC tied grants to GPs.
Payment trigger: Per-centre operator-event log + service-completion data.
KPIs
- • GPs with operational Service Centre — baseline: (new); F: ≥40%; B: 100%; C: 100% with quality.
- • Median service-completion time at PSC — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Parity with self-service App SLA; C: Sustained parity.
- • Operator-action audit pass rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥90%; B: ≥97%; C: ≥99%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Operator-side rent-seeking. Safeguard: Operator action logged; cross-verification with resident; complaint pathway.
- • Risk: Equipment failure leaving centres dark. Safeguard: Maintenance contracts with SLA; offline-tolerant design (Vol III Ch 22).
- • Risk: Caste-/gender-gatekeeping by operator. Safeguard: Inclusion audit (sheet H.180); rotation of operators.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 2; Vol III Ch 22.
- • App H sheets H.117 (Gram Sabha), H.169 (Assisted-Access Centres urban), H.126 (Panchayat Budget Transparency).
Problem
Karnataka rural roads deteriorate quickly; reactive contractor-driven repair is inefficient. The Works Corps Rural Maintenance Unit lifts the standard.
Program design
- District-level Rural Maintenance Unit under the Works Corps.
- Asset Registry for rural roads; published schedule.
- Rapid-repair SLA bound to Standard Escalation Ladder.
- Convergence with PMGSY + state schemes.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Works Corps (Rural wing)
Backup: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹700-1,000 cr / year
Source: State Budget; PMGSY maintenance share.
Payment trigger: Per-road maintenance evidence on Open Ledger.
KPIs
- • % rural roads in ’fair or better’ condition — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per block; B: ≥85%; C: ≥95%.
- • Median rapid-repair response time — baseline: Variable; F: ≤30 days; B: ≤14 days; C: ≤7 days.
- • Maintenance-backlog reduction — baseline: Significant; F: Stable; B: -50%; C: -90%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Maintenance fund diversion. Safeguard: Maintenance-first allocation ring-fenced (Vol I Sec. 3.4).
- • Risk: Contractor capture. Safeguard: Works Corps in-house preferred; published unit costs; rotation.
- • Risk: Asset over-design. Safeguard: Standard specs by road class; deviation requires reason.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 5; App H sheets H.037, H.069.
Problem
Karnataka rural habitations face uneven piped-water supply; some still depend on tankers or distant sources. JJM implementation is patchy.
Program design
- Source augmentation + distribution rebuild per village.
- Operation-and-maintenance model with community involvement.
- Quality monitoring with public publication.
- Smart metering at scale (where feasible).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (RWS&S wing)
Backup: Karnataka Rural Water Supply Agency
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹2,000-3,000 cr / year (capital + O&M)
Source: State Budget; JJM Centre share; user-fees with subsidies.
Payment trigger: Per-village commissioning + supply-hour data.
KPIs
- • Habitations with tested-safe daily supply — baseline: Partial; F: ≥85%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% sustained.
- • Median supply-hours per day — baseline: Variable; F: 6+ hrs; B: 12+ hrs; C: 24×7 where feasible.
- • Water-quality compliance rate — baseline: Variable; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: O&M fund shortfall after commissioning. Safeguard: Maintenance-first ring-fence; community-fund mechanism.
- • Risk: Quality data falsification. Safeguard: Independent sample re-test; published per-source data.
- • Risk: Vendor capture on plant equipment. Safeguard: Open bidder-floor; rotation; technology standards.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.034, H.074, H.080.
Problem
Karnataka rural power supply is uneven; feeder-level data is often opaque. AT&C losses and outage patterns disadvantage rural consumers.
Program design
- Feeder-level monitoring on every rural feeder.
- Outage-data published per feeder.
- AT&C loss reduction targets per ESCOM region.
- Agriculture-feeder + domestic separation pursued where feasible.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka ESCOMs (BESCOM/HESCOM/MESCOM/GESCOM/CESC)
Backup: Department of Energy
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹500-800 cr / year (monitoring + augmentation)
Source: State Budget; RDSS Centre share; user-fees.
Payment trigger: Feeder-level monitoring data + outage-response evidence.
KPIs
- • Rural feeders with real-time monitoring — baseline: Partial; F: ≥60%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% with audit.
- • Median rural-feeder supply hours — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per ESCOM; B: 20+ hrs; C: Quality reliable supply.
- • AT&C losses (district-weighted) — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: Material reduction; C: At/below national benchmark.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Meter tampering. Safeguard: Tamper-detection; criminal liability; sample re-audit.
- • Risk: Feeder-separation cost overrun. Safeguard: Phased implementation; App C RF-E-03 monitoring; published unit costs.
- • Risk: Tariff politicisation harming sustainability. Safeguard: Transparent unit-economics; cross-subsidy preservation rules.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.076, H.058 (Agri-power).
Problem
Rural Karnataka has uneven last-mile broadband. Digital service access is correspondingly uneven.
Program design
- Common Service Centre + BharatNet completion to GP.
- Cluster-level Wi-Fi (4G/5G) public access.
- Affordable retail-tier service through aggregator competition.
- Convergence with PSC (sheet H.109) for assisted use.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Wide Area Network team + Telecom Centre share
Backup: Department of Information Technology, Biotechnology & Science
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹300-450 cr / year
Source: State Budget; BharatNet + USOF Centre share.
Payment trigger: Per-GP connectivity status + retail-adoption data.
KPIs
- • GPs with operational BharatNet connection — baseline: Partial; F: ≥80%; B: 100%; C: 100% with quality SLA.
- • Retail rural broadband adoption rate (households) — baseline: Low; F: Baselined per district; B: Material rise; C: Universal household access where willing.
- • Public Wi-Fi cluster coverage — baseline: (new); F: ≥30% GPs; B: ≥70%; C: 100%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: BharatNet last-mile drop in maintenance. Safeguard: O&M contract with published SLA; community-O&M alternative.
- • Risk: Aggregator capture / over-pricing. Safeguard: Open empanelment; published tariff floor; complaint pathway.
- • Risk: Digital exclusion of low-literacy users. Safeguard: Assisted access (sheet H.109); voice channel.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.109, H.151.
Problem
Rural Karnataka exports labour and primary produce; value addition happens elsewhere. Local production capacity for high-volume essential goods is missing.
Program design
- State Manufacturing Network micro-factories sited in rural / peri-rural clusters.
- Items: school furniture, uniforms, water meters, LED streetlights, basic medical consumables.
- Operated by FPOs / cooperatives where possible.
- Tech assistance and quality certification.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Manufacturing Network
Backup: Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Board
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹400-600 cr / year (capital + capability)
Source: State Budget; PMFME convergence; PSU + cooperative credit.
Payment trigger: Per-unit commissioning + throughput data.
KPIs
- • Rural micro-factories operational — baseline: Limited; F: +200 statewide; B: +800; C: +2,000.
- • Cooperative/community ownership share — baseline: (new); F: ≥60%; B: ≥75%; C: ≥85%.
- • Public-procurement off-take share — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material share; C: Stable demand floor.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Sub-scale economics. Safeguard: Cluster-economics study; published unit costs.
- • Risk: Quality compliance gaps. Safeguard: Testing-lab access; certification-cost subsidy initially.
- • Risk: Vendor lock-in on equipment. Safeguard: Open-standard procurement; tech-portability.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 5; App H sheets H.063, H.115.
Problem
Karnataka rural youth face limited access to skill training pathways. Pathways to apprenticeship and first jobs are uneven.
Program design
- Skill Hub at block level (smaller-scale equivalent of district Skill Lab).
- Sector-aligned with local economic opportunity.
- Apprenticeship linkage with local employers.
- Convergence with Innovation Hubs (sheet H.128).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship
Backup: Karnataka State Council for Vocational Training
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹250-350 cr / year
Source: State Budget; PMKVY convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-hub training-event + placement evidence.
KPIs
- • Blocks with operational Skill Hub — baseline: Limited; F: ≥40%; B: ≥85%; C: 100%.
- • Trainee throughput per Hub per year — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material throughput; C: Stable capacity-use.
- • Trainee placement / progression rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥70%; B: ≥85%; C: ≥90%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Training-provider capture. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; trainer-performance published.
- • Risk: Mis-targeted skills. Safeguard: Local-economy alignment; employer-link required; placement-rate tracked.
- • Risk: Gender / caste exclusion. Safeguard: Inclusion audit; targeted outreach.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.006, H.007, H.127.
Problem
Karnataka Gram Panchayats vary widely in capacity, delivery, and finance discipline. Citizens have limited continuous visibility.
Program design
- Panchayat Scorecard published quarterly per GP.
- Capacity, service delivery, finance, transparency metrics.
- Independent verification on sample basis.
- Citizen-engagement channels integrated.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Backup: Karnataka State Election Commission (data partner)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹30-60 cr / year (platform + facilitation)
Source: State Budget; convergence with 15th FC reporting.
Payment trigger: Per-quarter scorecard publication + verification evidence.
KPIs
- • GPs publishing current scorecard — baseline: Partial; F: All GPs; B: All GPs with quality; C: Continuous + audit.
- • Independent-verification sample pass rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥85% pass; C: ≥95% pass.
- • Citizen engagement with scorecard (sessions per GP) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Rising trajectory; C: Routine reference.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Data manipulation by GP staff. Safeguard: Independent verification; sample audit; whistleblower protection.
- • Risk: Scorecard becomes vanity. Safeguard: Rating-triggered audit (Vol I Sec. 1.7 #8); civic-tech open-data.
- • Risk: Politicisation in close-contest panchayats. Safeguard: Statutory data ownership; KIC oversight.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.117, H.126, H.215.
Problem
Karnataka Gram Sabhas are formally empowered audit bodies but often dormant. Citizen-side audit of GP activity is sporadic.
Program design
- Mandatory quarterly Gram Sabha with structured audit agenda.
- GP records accessible — works, finance, beneficiary lists, complaints.
- Sabha-decision recording on the spine.
- Convergence with social audit (MGNREGS pattern).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Backup: Karnataka State Election Commission (process oversight)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹40-70 cr / year (facilitation)
Source: State Budget; 15th FC convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-GP Sabha record + decision-tracking.
KPIs
- • GPs with quarterly Gram Sabha held + minutes published — baseline: Variable; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100%.
- • Sabha-decisions traced to action — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥80%; C: ≥95%.
- • Inclusive participation rate (women / SC-ST / minority) — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined per GP; B: Rising trajectory; C: Quorum-quality met.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Quorum manipulation. Safeguard: Inclusion safeguards (sheets H.177–H.178); independent observation.
- • Risk: Faction capture. Safeguard: Rotation of facilitators; appeal pathway; pattern audit.
- • Risk: Tokenistic record-keeping. Safeguard: Sample audit; decision-to-action tracking.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.013, H.116, H.215.
Problem
Karnataka rural health-system reach falls below need in remote blocks. Mobile and outreach services need to fill the geographic gap.
Program design
- Rural Health Post network filling sub-centre / PHC gaps.
- Mobile health vans on published routes.
- Tele-medicine link to district specialists.
- Convergence with Family Health Teams (sheet H.019).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Health & Family Welfare
Backup: National Health Mission Karnataka unit
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹250-380 cr / year
Source: State Budget; NHM convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-post / per-van service-event data.
KPIs
- • Remote blocks with health-post + mobile-van coverage — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: All identified blocks; C: Continuous coverage with quality.
- • Mobile-van adherence to published route — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
- • Specialist tele-consultation availability at post — baseline: (new); F: Pilot scale; B: All posts; C: Routine use.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Van non-deployment. Safeguard: GPS tracking; published route adherence; complaint pathway.
- • Risk: Drug supply gaps at post. Safeguard: Sheet H.020 KSEMCA supply chain.
- • Risk: Quality of mobile-care below clinic standard. Safeguard: Standard-treatment-guidelines; tele-link for complex cases.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.019, H.020, H.026.
Problem
Karnataka rural government schools face compounded resource and learning gaps. Village-level improvement happens unevenly.
Program design
- Village-level School Improvement Plan with SMC ownership.
- Convergence with all sheets H.001–H.018 (Education).
- Specific support for first-generation learners and tribal-area schools.
- Outcomes published per school.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of School Education & Literacy
Backup: Karnataka State School Education Mission
Funding model
Annual cost band: Embedded in Education sheets H.001–H.018 (no standalone)
Source: Convergence across Education programmes.
Payment trigger: Per-school improvement-plan + outcome evidence.
KPIs
- • Schools with current Village Improvement Plan — baseline: Variable; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% with refresh cycle.
- • Learning-outcome trajectory in target schools — baseline: Below state median; F: Baselined; B: Gap closing; C: At/above state median.
- • First-generation-learner retention rate — baseline: Patchy; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained continuity.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Plan stays on paper. Safeguard: Quarterly review by District Education Mission Team; published progress.
- • Risk: Resource diversion. Safeguard: Outcome budget tagging; published per-school spend.
- • Risk: Exclusion of marginalised groups. Safeguard: Inclusion-audit (sheet H.180); Equity audit (sheet H.204).
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.001–H.018 in convergence.
Problem
Crop-residue burning and soil-fertility decline in Karnataka rural blocks compound air-quality and farm-productivity problems.
Program design
- Crop-residue management programme with composting, mulching, bio-energy alternatives.
- Soil-fertility tracking at village scale (sheet H.057 convergence).
- Awareness + behavioural-change support via field coaches.
- Convergence with environmental and agricultural sheets.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Agriculture
Backup: Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (air-quality link)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹120-180 cr / year
Source: State Budget; convergence with crop-residue management Centre share.
Payment trigger: Per-village residue-management + soil-data evidence.
KPIs
- • Villages with residue-management programme — baseline: Limited; F: ≥40% high-residue blocks; B: All high-residue blocks; C: Universal in identified geographies.
- • Burning-incident rate (sampled) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: Sustained low.
- • Soil-fertility trend at sampled villages — baseline: Decline in some; F: Baselined; B: Stabilised; C: Rising trend.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Equipment vendor capture. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation.
- • Risk: Limited alternatives at scale. Safeguard: Multi-pathway approach (composting + bio-energy + mulching).
- • Risk: Enforcement against poor farmers. Safeguard: Support-first approach; penalty only after support failure documented.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.057, H.078, H.083.
Problem
Karnataka has achieved toilet construction at scale but use, maintenance, and broader sanitation (waste-water, solid waste) lag.
Program design
- Beyond-toilet sanitation focus: greywater, solid waste, public sanitation.
- Maintenance of household + community sanitation assets.
- Behavioural-change communication.
- Convergence with clean-water (sheet H.111).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (Swachh Bharat-G)
Backup: Karnataka State Rural Sanitation Mission
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹350-500 cr / year
Source: State Budget; SBM-G convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-village sanitation-asset functionality data.
KPIs
- • Functional household toilet rate — baseline: High but variable; F: ≥95%; B: ≥98%; C: 100% sustained.
- • Community sanitation infra functionality — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: ≥90%; C: ≥98%.
- • Greywater management coverage — baseline: (new); F: Pilot blocks; B: All eligible villages; C: Universal in identified geographies.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Asset construction without use. Safeguard: Use-survey audit; behavioural-change communication; maintenance funding.
- • Risk: Maintenance neglect. Safeguard: Maintenance fund mechanism; Asset Registry; community-O&M model.
- • Risk: Exclusion of vulnerable groups. Safeguard: Inclusion audit; targeted support; Vulnerability Case File link.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.034, H.111, H.122.
Problem
Karnataka SHGs (NRLM + state initiatives) deliver important rural-economy gains but capacity, credit access, and federation strength vary widely.
Program design
- SHG strengthening with training + credit + federation support.
- Convergence with FPOs (sheet H.060) and micro-factories (sheet H.114).
- Public-procurement preference where lawful (sheet H.209 alignment).
- Independent governance audits.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka State Rural Livelihood Mission (KSRLM)
Backup: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹350-500 cr / year
Source: State Budget; NRLM Centre share.
Payment trigger: Per-SHG performance + federation-level outcomes.
KPIs
- • Active SHGs with audited accounts — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined statewide; B: ≥90% with quality audit; C: Universal.
- • Credit access (avg per SHG) — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained credit access at need.
- • Procurement-share via SHG (where lawful) — baseline: Limited; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained policy outcomes.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Capture of SHG by local elite. Safeguard: Statutory governance norms; audited accounts; member-led oversight.
- • Risk: Credit-defaults compounding. Safeguard: Insurance + grace mechanisms; transparent recovery; rehabilitation pathway.
- • Risk: Procurement-preference fraud. Safeguard: Spine-linked verification; sample audit.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.060, H.114, H.209.
Problem
Karnataka’s rural areas hold significant cultural and natural assets. Tourism economics largely bypass them; the value flows to large operators in cities.
Program design
- Community-anchored rural tourism circuits (homestays, guides, food).
- Heritage and biodiversity-trail development.
- Quality standards + transparent registry.
- Convergence with FPOs and SHGs for service delivery.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Tourism + Department of Kannada & Culture
Backup: Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹120-180 cr / year
Source: State Budget; Centre tourism schemes; carbon-tourism revenue (where applicable).
Payment trigger: Per-circuit commissioning + community-revenue data.
KPIs
- • Operational community-anchored circuits — baseline: Limited; F: +30; B: +120; C: +300.
- • Community share of tourist-revenue — baseline: Low; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained majority share.
- • Visitor-satisfaction (independent) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained quality.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Large-operator displacement of community operators. Safeguard: Preference rules; quality-bundling; rotation; published bookings data.
- • Risk: Cultural-heritage commodification. Safeguard: Community consent; benefit-sharing protocols; cultural rights respected.
- • Risk: Biodiversity / heritage damage from over-tourism. Safeguard: Carrying-capacity studies; permit caps; published monitoring.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.075, H.087, H.122.
Problem
Karnataka tribal blocks face compounded geographic, economic, and social disadvantage. Generic state plans under-serve specific tribal needs.
Program design
- Tribal Sub-Plan delivery with statutory ring-fence.
- Block-level Tribal Plan with FRA implementation, livelihood, education, health convergence.
- Community-controlled Forest Rights claims processing.
- Cultural-heritage protection.
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Tribal Welfare
Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Tribes
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹600-900 cr / year (specific tribal head)
Source: State Budget Tribal Sub-Plan; Centre share.
Payment trigger: Per-block plan + delivery evidence.
KPIs
- • Tribal blocks with current block-level plan — baseline: Variable; F: All identified blocks; B: All with quality + outcomes; C: Continuous refresh.
- • FRA individual + community claims pendency — baseline: Significant; F: Pendency reduced 30%; B: 60%; C: 90% with closure.
- • Outcome gaps (education, health) vs state median — baseline: Wide; F: Baselined; B: Material narrowing; C: Gap closed against floor.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: FRA-claim rejection abuse. Safeguard: Independent review; appeal pathway; transparent rejection reasons.
- • Risk: Resource diversion away from tribal head. Safeguard: Statutory ring-fence; Equity audit (sheet H.204); KSCST oversight.
- • Risk: Cultural-displacement risk from development. Safeguard: Consent-based engagement; LARR Act compliance; cultural protection rules.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.075, H.207, H.108.
Problem
Karnataka has both significant out-migration (workers) and in-migration (workers from other states). Both groups face fragmented services and identity disconnects.
Program design
- Migrant Worker Registration on the spine with portability.
- Returnee-support pathway (skill, livelihood, health).
- Inter-state cooperation protocols.
- Convergence with Migrant Workers sheet H.171 (urban Inclusive).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Labour + Department of Skill Development
Backup: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹120-200 cr / year
Source: State Budget; Centre labour-welfare convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-migrant registration + service-bundle activation.
KPIs
- • Registered out-migrants with portable entitlements — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material registration; C: Universal where willing.
- • Returnee-support package activation rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥70% on identification; C: ≥90%.
- • Inter-state cooperation cases handled — baseline: (new); F: Pilot pathways; B: Routine pathway; C: Sustained capability.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Worker reluctance to register from exploitation fear. Safeguard: Confidentiality guarantee; benefits made attractive; trusted-intermediary outreach.
- • Risk: Inter-state cooperation friction. Safeguard: MoU-based protocols; published cooperation data.
- • Risk: Data-broker abuse of migrant data. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review; statutory prohibition.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.171, H.122.
Problem
Karnataka GP budgets are formally devolved but operationally opaque. Citizens have limited visibility into what the panchayat receives and spends.
Program design
- GP budget publication on the spine.
- Per-scheme allocation visible at GP and Gram Sabha.
- Quarterly expenditure reporting.
- Convergence with Panchayat Scorecards (sheet H.116).
Owning agency
Lead: Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj
Backup: Karnataka State Audit & Accounts Department
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹30-60 cr / year (platform + facilitation)
Source: State Budget; 15th FC reporting convergence.
Payment trigger: Per-GP budget + quarterly expenditure publication.
KPIs
- • GPs publishing current budget — baseline: Partial; F: All GPs; B: All GPs with quality; C: Continuous + audit.
- • Quarterly expenditure publication compliance — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100% with audit.
- • Independent verification sample pass rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥85% pass; C: ≥95% pass.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Data manipulation by GP staff. Safeguard: Independent verification; whistleblower protection.
- • Risk: Civic-data illiteracy reducing use. Safeguard: Civic literacy modules (sheet H.188); plain-language summaries.
- • Risk: Politicisation in close-contest GPs. Safeguard: Statutory data ownership; KIC oversight.
Dependencies
- • App H sheets H.116, H.117, H.215.
H.223 — Rural Infrastructure Refresh — village windows in the 10-year Structural Rebuild
Problem
Karnataka’s villages have piecemeal infrastructure: water mains where they exist are old, sewage is missing in most villages, internal roads degrade in monsoons, electricity and telecom cables run overhead, and the Standing Asset Maintenance Corps has historically not covered village-level work systematically.
Program design
- Every village inside the 10-year Structural Rebuild Programme (Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.6).
- Each village finishes in ONE indivisible 7-15 day window (not split visits).
- Villages sequenced through 10-year horizon based on state-wide demand survey + condition assessment; published on Open Ledger + panchayat consultation before lock.
- Full Structural Rebuild scope: village internal roads, water-supply mains, sewage per Karnataka Wastewater Plan, underground cabling where geometry permits, junction lighting, panchayat office refresh.
- Team ~100+ workers; priority hiring from local block.
Owning agency
Lead: Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept + State Works Corps (Rural wing)
Backup: Gram Panchayat + Taluk Panchayat (consultation + handoff to maintenance)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹6,000–10,000 cr / year statewide (rural Y1-5 share); roughly ₹30,000+ cr total rural over 5 years; another similar Y6-10
Source: State Budget Rural Development + Panchayat Raj heads; central-scheme co-financing (PMGSY, Jal Jeevan, RGGVY); 5-year legislatively appropriated capital tranche
Payment trigger: Per-village plan publication + panchayat consultation certification + 100+ worker team roster + window-close asset handoff
KPIs
- • Villages completed — baseline: 0; F: 15% of state villages; B: 50%; C: 100% (combined with Y6-10).
- • Villages with verified piped water + sewage handoff post-window — baseline: <20%; F: 100% of completed; B: maintained; C: maintained.
- • Panchayat consultation completion rate before lock — baseline: (new); F: 100% with audit certification; B: 100% with citizen-feedback incorporation evidence; C: 100% with revision-cycle documentation.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Larger villages favoured over smaller. Safeguard: condition + demand criteria published; small-village inclusion target embedded in sequencing rule.
- • Risk: Local political capture of panchayat consultation. Safeguard: independent observer + Citizen Data Trust ombudsperson reviews feedback patterns; objection authority over lock.
- • Risk: State team capacity insufficient to cover all villages in 10 years. Safeguard: parallel team build-out tracked in Vol III App F Project Delivery Cadre; recruitment milestones.
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.6 (Structural Rebuild Programme); Vol II Ch 13 Sec. 13.6.1 (Rural Infrastructure Refresh).
- • Vol III App B (B.X Hard-gated Planning Discipline); Vol III App J (Cities CAPEX line covers urban + early-cohort rural).
H.224 — Rural Toilet Network
Problem
Rural Karnataka households gained latrine access through Swachh Bharat but public toilet provision for travellers, weekly markets, transport halts, and shared community use remains weak. Operations + maintenance of existing rural community toilets is inconsistent.
Program design
- Public Toilet Network (Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.9) extends to every village.
- Most rural sites: Basic or Standard style per Karnataka Toilet Code; high-traffic (weekly markets, transport halts) get Full style.
- State-built and state-operated; village cleaning teams cover clusters of villages on fixed rotation (2 workers + van + high-pressure pump).
- Free use for everyone.
- Sanitation workers as permanent state employees per the dignity package (Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.9).
Owning agency
Lead: Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept + Karnataka Sanitation Authority (operations)
Backup: Gram Panchayat (site identification + complaint pathway)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹400–700 cr / year statewide (rural share of total Public Toilet Network)
Source: State Budget Rural Development + Health heads; Swachh Bharat Gramin co-financing
Payment trigger: Per-block operational status + cluster-team rotation evidence + citizen-rating dashboard
KPIs
- • Villages with at least one operational public toilet block at primary gathering location — baseline: <30%; F: ≥60%; B: ≥90%; C: 100%.
- • Weekly-market days with operational toilet access — baseline: variable; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100%.
- • Rural sanitation worker mechanisation — baseline: <10%; F: ≥50%; B: ≥85%; C: 100%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Rural sites under-funded relative to urban. Safeguard: rural funding ringfenced as % of Public Toilet Network total; audit per Vol III App C red-flag rules.
- • Risk: Cluster teams too thinly stretched across distant villages. Safeguard: team-coverage ratio per published density formula; recruitment scales with coverage gap.
- • Risk: Worker grievances harder to reach ombudsperson from remote villages. Safeguard: JANATA-based grievance pathway works on 4G/5G coverage (Five Amenities ensures rural coverage by Year 5).
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.9 (Public Toilet Network canonical); Vol II Ch 13 Sec. 13.6.1.
- • Vol III App H Agriculture sheets H.057 (canonical) + this sheet (rural extension); Vol III App I Karnataka Sanitation Workers Protection Act.
H.225 — Rural Five Amenities
Problem
Karnataka’s rural amenity gaps are substantial: ~30% of villages lack reliable piped water, most lack sewage networks (decentralised treatment is the realistic path), electricity reliability is weaker than urban, public-transport gaps strand many habitations, and digital connectivity drops off rapidly outside tier-1 ranges.
Program design
- Five Amenities Flagship (Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.10) extends to every village by Year 5.
- Piped drinking water with 20L/person/day free + paid above (consistency principle).
- Sewage per locally-determined treatment design — most rural sites: decentralised treatment per Karnataka Wastewater Plan.
- Electricity with universal connection + reliability standard (Y1 + Y3 milestones).
- Public transport per Karnataka Public Transport Access Standard (state bus access targeted per village density + terrain).
- Digital connectivity through fibre or 4G/5G coverage (universal by Year 5).
- Consistency principle: free only for survival essentials; paid for infrastructure use including BPL households; targeted means-tested subsidies.
Owning agency
Lead: Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept + KPTCL/BESCOM (electricity) + KSRTC (transport) + Karnataka Digital Authority (broadband)
Backup: Gram Panchayat + Taluk Panchayat (delivery + accountability)
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹25,000–40,000 cr over 5 years (rural share of Five Amenities Flagship)
Source: State Budget Rural Development + Energy + Transport + Cybersecurity heads; central-scheme co-financing (Jal Jeevan rural, RGGVY, BharatNet, PMGSY transport)
Payment trigger: Per-habitation connection status on Open Ledger + per-zone supply standards + monthly reliability metrics
KPIs
- • Rural habitations with piped drinking water — baseline: ~65%; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100%.
- • Rural villages with electricity reliability standard met — baseline: ~40%; F: ≥65%; B: ≥90%; C: 100%.
- • Rural villages within target distance of public transport stop — baseline: ~50%; F: ≥75%; B: ≥95%; C: 100%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Rural electricity ’free’ politicisation. Safeguard: Vol I Ch 4 Sec. 4.4a Consistency Principle locks state-wide rule; legislative amendment required to alter; agricultural-pump subsidy handled separately under targeted means-test (Vol II Ch 10).
- • Risk: Decentralised treatment units operationally abandoned within 2-3 years. Safeguard: state teams operate (not contractors); 10-year operating budget pre-locked per unit.
- • Risk: BharatNet last-mile fails to deliver to remote villages. Safeguard: Karnataka Digital Authority publishes per-village coverage commitment with deadline; missed commitments trigger Citizen Data Trust ombudsperson review.
Dependencies
- • Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.10 (Five Amenities canonical); Vol II Ch 13 (Rural extension); Vol I Ch 4 Sec. 4.4a (Consistency Principle).
- • Vol III App H Agriculture sheet H.058 (canonical) + this sheet (rural extension); Vol III App B (B.X Hard-gated Planning Discipline for Wastewater Plan).
Architecture cross-reference
Architecture cross-reference — sector sheets to architectural sheets
Each program sheet in this sector references the operating architecture defined in Vol I Ch 2 and App H CyberDPI sheets H.230–H.233. Specifically: financial flows from this sector’s programs are published through the Open Ledger (sector-specific data fields per App D) anchored to KSSL (sheet H.230). Time-series outcome data and sector dashboards are published on the Karnataka Open Data Portal (sheet H.233). Personal data flows (where applicable) are governed by the Citizen Consent Ledger (sheet H.232). Security audit and incident response across this sector’s systems falls under the statutory CSOC (sheet H.231).
H.236 — Village Digital Centre Network
Problem
Karnataka has ~6,000 Gram Panchayats covering ~30,000 villages. Today’s first-tier assisted-access points sit at the Gram Panchayat HQ, which can be several kilometres from the household. For elderly residents, residents with mobility limitations, residents without smartphones, and residents in remote habitations, the trip itself is the barrier. The promise that every state interaction has an in-person assisted-access path is not yet kept at village granularity.
Program design
By the build-out phase (Year 1 ramp, fully built by Year 5), every Karnataka village hosts a Village Digital Centre — small footprint, staffed at scheduled hours, integrated with the Panchayat Service Centre / ward-kiosk workflow. Co-located with the village school, anganwadi, community hall, or library wherever available; standalone where not. Trained operator schedule rotates across villages within the Gram Panchayat where staffing density is low. Connectivity via state mobile-broadband where fixed-line is unavailable; offline-tolerant workflow per Vol III Ch 22 design. Every centre carries the same workflow engine as the Panchayat Service Centre, anchored through KSSL.
Owning agency
Lead: Karnataka Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department
Backup: Karnataka Information Technology Department (technical layer)
Statutory backing: Karnataka State Digital Infrastructure Act (Vol III App I Sec. I.4.14) covers the architectural layer; village-centre roll-out under existing Gram Panchayat empowerment provisions.
Funding model
Annual cost band: ₹400-700 cr / year at full scale (Year 5) — staffing + connectivity + small-footprint hardware × ~30,000 centres
Source: State Budget — Rural Development head; convergence with central rural-connectivity schemes; co-location savings where school/anganwadi/library hosts the centre
Payment trigger: Per-centre uptime + transactions-completed milestones; quarterly civil-society audit
KPIs
- • Village coverage — baseline: 0%; F: ≥50% of Karnataka villages with operational centre by end of Year 3; B: ≥80% by Year 4; C: 100% by Year 5.
- • Centre uptime during scheduled hours — baseline: (new); F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥99% with statutory remedy.
- • Per-centre transactions completed monthly — baseline: 0; F: 50; B: 200; C: 500 sustained.
- • Resident travel distance to nearest assisted-access point — baseline: variable (often >5 km); F: ≤2 km median; B: ≤1 km median; C: in-village.
- • Operator-action audit pass rate (anchored through KSSL) — baseline: (new); F: ≥95%; B: ≥99%; C: 100%.
Standard risk controls
- • Risk: Operator gatekeeping or informal pricing at village centre. Safeguard: KSSL anchoring of every operator action; quarterly cross-village rotation of operators; civil-society audit; statutory complaint route to Grievance Justice Authority (Vol I Ch 6).
- • Risk: Connectivity-driven downtime in remote villages. Safeguard: offline-tolerant workflow per Vol III Ch 22; SMS + voice fallback for receipts; mobile-broadband + satellite backup procurement.
- • Risk: Co-location host (school / anganwadi) blocks centre use. Safeguard: statutory protected hours for the centre; complaint route to RDPR.
- • Risk: Vendor lock-in on village-centre hardware procurement. Safeguard: vendor diversity ceiling (Vol I Ch 6 supporting rules); open-source workflow stack; State Manufacturing Catalog convergence where applicable.
Dependencies
- • Vol I Ch 1 Sec. 1.6 Consolidation phase commitment.
- • Vol I Ch 2 Sec. 2.3 (the resident journey extends to village-tier).
- • Vol II Ch 13 (Rural) — operationally integrated with the Gram Panchayat Service Centre.
- • Vol III Ch 22 Sec. 22.2 (assisted-access tier).
- • App H sheets H.109 (Panchayat Service Centres) — the parent sheet this extends; H.230 KSSL anchoring; H.232 Citizen Consent Ledger.
- • Karnataka State Digital Infrastructure Act (App I Sec. I.4.14) — architectural backing.
H.109 — RURAL — Panchayat Service Centres (Assisted Access)
H.110 — RURAL — Rural Road Maintenance Corps
H.111 — RURAL — Drinking Water Reliability — every habitation
H.112 — RURAL — Reliable Power — feeder-level monitoring
H.113 — RURAL — Rural Broadband Last Mile
H.114 — RURAL — Local Micro-factories
H.115 — RURAL — Block Skill Hubs
H.116 — RURAL — Panchayat Scorecards (Published)
H.117 — RURAL — Gram Sabha as Audit Body
H.118 — RURAL — Rural Health Posts & Mobile Care
H.119 — RURAL — School Improvement at the Village Level
H.120 — RURAL — Crop-Stub & Soil-fertility at Village Scale
H.121 — RURAL — Rural Sanitation Beyond Toilets
H.122 — RURAL — Women’s Self-Help Group Strengthening
H.123 — RURAL — Rural Tourism & Culture Trails
H.124 — RURAL — Tribal Area Special Plans
H.125 — RURAL — Migration & Returnee Support
H.126 — RURAL — Panchayat Budget Transparency
← Appendix H — Program Atlas · Appendix H — Program Atlas →
This is a chapter of The People's Model manifesto for Karnataka — published in full for public review. Every claim may be challenged: write to [email protected].