The recent Cabinet decision to recast the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) marks an important shift in India’s rural water policy. The first phase delivered scale. The next addresses a difficult question on how to ensure water continues to flow reliably after the pipes have been laid, explains Saumitra Bhaduri
JJM 1.0: Success story at scale
Any assessment of Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) 2.0 begins with recognising the scale of success achieved under the original mission. When JJM was launched in 2019, only about 16% of rural households had access to tap water. Within a few years, coverage expanded to over 81%, implying that more than 15 crore households were connected in record time. Over 2.75 lakh villages have been declared “Har Ghar Jal”, reflecting universal tap coverage at the village level.
At the same time, several
states, including Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, and Telangana, have already achieved or are close to near-universal access. The programme has also generated substantial economic activity, creating employment during its implementation. However, the transformation under the Jal
Jeevan Mission is not merely numerical. Its social impact has been transformative: villages that once relied on distant or unsafe sources now have piped water at the household level, reshaping health outcomes, time use, and everyday dignity.
The case for a second iteration
The very success of JJM 1.0 has also exposed its limitations, as the first phase was focused on laying pipes and meeting connection targets. However, access does not guarantee reliability, quality, or sustainability. JJM 2.0, therefore, represents a pivot from coverage to credibility.
Furthermore, the first phase of the mission was heavily oriented towards capital expenditures and did not fully account for the recurring costs of maintaining these systems. Water supply is not a one-time investment; it requires ongoing energy costs for pumping, network maintenance, staffing, and periodic asset replacement.
The nature of the mission created a structural imbalance in which the Centre and states financed the creation of assets, but the long-term responsibility for operating them remained less clearly defined.
What’s new in JJM 2.0?
The redesigned mission places a clear emphasis on moving from infrastructure creation to service delivery. It prioritises the regularity, quality, and assured supply of water. At its core is a stronger focus on source sustainability, with measures like groundwater recharge, rainwater harvesting, and local water security planning. The mission also incorporates a lifecycle approach to financing by improving operations and maintenance (O&M) systems and institutional mechanisms for long-term upkeep. Community ownership is expected to be central, with more active involvement in management and oversight. Integrating technology through IoT-based monitoring and real-time dashboards aims to improve transparency and efficiency. An expanded water quality surveillance system also seeks to ensure regular testing and address contamination risks.
JJM 2.0 proposes a different financial architecture by moving beyond a narrow focus on capital expenditure. But it entails greater cost-sharing by states and local bodies, so it advocates fiscal decentralisation and embedding responsibility closer to the point of service delivery. The framework suggests a gradual move towards cost recovery through nominal user charges, particularly to sustain O&M. The mission also emphasises convergence funding by aligning with programmes like MGNREGA, watershed initiatives, and Finance Commission grants to support both infrastructure upkeep and source sustainability. Also, there is a shift towards PLIs where future funding is increasingly tied to service outcomes.
Challenges for the mission
The evolving financial architecture also introduces risks that could undermine the mission. Many states already operate under fiscal constraints, and the added burden of recurring O&M expenses may lead to underfunding or uneven service quality. These may lead to unequal outcomes where fiscally stronger and administratively capable states sustain high-quality service delivery while weaker ones struggle to maintain systems. Finally, the move towards user charges, even if modest, raises political economy challenges and makes the right to clean water conditional. India’s rural water policy is transforming, and it could also reshape how the right to clean water will be upheld in practice. If successful, JJM 2.0 could redefine India’s development model, anchoring it in durable, financially viable public service delivery.