Be careful with it. The article draws a sharp line between the NPG reviewing a project and a ministry or state actually sanctioning and funding it. The NPG’s own job is evaluating projects for integrated, multimodal planning, not issuing sanctions itself. If a report uses “sanctioned” loosely to mean “reviewed,” it is mixing two different stages of the same pipeline. The safer habit is to check whether the report names the actual sanctioning ministry or state body, since that is the body whose approval and budget process actually matters.

Because the two lists answer different questions. The seven engines name the physical sectors being connected, like railways, roads, and ports, the “what” of the plan. The six pillars, such as comprehensiveness, prioritisation, and synchronisation, describe how any project on the shared map should be evaluated, the “how.” Treating a pillar as though it were an eighth engine, or an engine as though it were a seventh pillar, is exactly the kind of swap an exam question likes to test.

Because they serve different purposes even though both touch infrastructure data. The Gati Shakti GIS platform is a planning tool: it overlays map layers so teams can spot gaps and clashes before and during project design. PAIMANA, run separately by MoSPI, is a progress-tracking dashboard for large Central Sector projects already underway. One helps you plan a route; the other tells you how an approved project is progressing. Confusing “tracked on a shared platform” with “the same platform” is the trap this distinction guards against.