Command-and-control dashboards are increasingly used in Indian governance. Critically evaluate their potential and limitations for accountability and cooperative federalism.

Command-and-control dashboards are platforms that combine administrative data into one live view for senior decision-makers. Examples range from PRAGATI (2015) to the National Strategic Trade Command Centre (NSTCC), launched in October 2026. They promise a shift "from periodic reporting towards continuous monitoring" [1]. Their value for accountability and federalism, however, depends on conditions and is not automatic.

Potential: Accountability

• Delays become visible and someone owns them: NSTCC tracks pendency and processing timelines down to individual applications. Its SCOMET dashboard led straight to weekly Inter-Ministerial Committee meetings to clear the backlog [1].
• Benchmarking: DGFT Regional Authorities are compared against set indicators, which creates peer pressure [1].

Potential: Cooperative Federalism

• One table for problem-solving: PRAGATI brings Chief Secretaries and Union Secretaries together. It has resolved 2,958 of 3,187 identified issues [2].
• Shared data for planning: all 36 States/UTs are onboarded to PM GatiShakti and have built their own State Master Plan portals [3]. This shows partnership rather than a one-way Centre-to-State relationship.

Limitations: Accountability

• Wrong data in, wrong picture out: CAG found 1,08,798 EPCG authorisations still unredeemed after their export obligation period ended. It also found the online system did not check whether uploaded documents were genuine [4]. A dashboard would show such cases as complete.
• Only accountable inside government: NSTCC access is role-based and limited to officials, and no Act or budget figure backs it [1]. Parliament and citizens cannot check its numbers. By contrast, a public CAG audit put the ₹4,205 crore revenue implication of unmet export obligations on record [5].
• It shows the delay but cannot clear it: the SCOMET backlog needed more frequent meetings, not new software [1].

Limitations: Cooperative Federalism

• Centralising tilt: States join NSTCC only in later phases, and as data users rather than co-designers of indicators [1]. Reviews led from the top risk turning into summons rather than partnership.

Dashboards strengthen answerability within the executive and give the Centre and States a common data language. But they reflect only the data fed into them, not conditions on the ground. Three steps would help:

• match records against Customs shipping data, as CAG recommends [4];
• publish quarterly pendency summaries;
• design indicators jointly with States through forums such as the Inter-State Council under Article 263.

Together, these would turn dashboards into tools of transparent, cooperative governance.