Centre-state cooperation is critical for the success of infrastructure schemes. Analyse this in the context of the Modified UDAN aerodrome development programme.

The Cabinet-approved Regional Connectivity Scheme – Modified UDAN, with an outlay of ₹28,840 crore over FY 2026–27 to FY 2035–36, seeks to develop 100 airports from existing unserved airstrips and 200 helipads [1][2]. Since land, law and order, and last-mile support lie with states, the scheme's fate rests less on central funding than on federal coordination — best analysed by decomposing the project cycle.

Pre-construction: land is a state subject

• The Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture (2023) attributed airport delays to state-level delays in land acquisition, allotment and in-principle approvals [3].
• Of 13 approved greenfield airports, four became operational only after 10 years and one after 20 years, largely due to rehabilitation, resettlement and consequent litigation [3].
• Hence the recently launched Challenge Mode, under which states sign MoUs and compete on completion timelines, targets exactly the incentive gap: the Centre cannot acquire land, but it can make states want to move.

Construction and inter-agency clearance

• Many unserved airstrips are state- or defence-linked; 31 civil enclaves exist, 28 maintained by AAI, where dual military-civil management demands close coordination [3].

Post-commissioning: sustaining the asset

• O&M support is capped at ₹3.06 crore per airport annually for only three years [2]; thereafter the recurring burden of security, fire and lighting shifts largely to states.
• Viability, not concrete, is the binding constraint — less than 40% of routes awarded under RCS-UDAN had been operationalised, and the Committee urged extending airline benefits by two years [4].

Thus Modified UDAN's success depends on a continuum of cooperation — land before construction, clearances during it, and fiscal stamina after it. A public, jointly-maintained land-acquisition tracker alongside the Challenge Mode scoreboard, a clear greenfield-versus-brownfield policy [3], and longer route support would convert competitive federalism into genuinely cooperative federalism, advancing balanced regional development.