How long does J&K need to be treated as a special category State under Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSSs) is a question on which much can be said on either side A State of the Indian Union, when brought under special category, enjoys a number of concessions and facilities which other States are not entitled to. Essentially, the question is what is the criterion for bracketing a State among the Special Category States? As far as J&K is concerned, firstly it is the geography and climate which invite our attention. Geographically speaking, this is a mountainous State being in the declensions of the Himalayas and the Karakorum. It has very limited plain area and the most of it is hilly. As such, its capacity for agricultural pursuits is limited. Secondly, it has a harsh climate. Most of the hilly areas in all the three regions get heavy snowfall, and the highways often get blocked owing to snow and landslides. In this sense it does differ a lot from the states in the plains of India. Thirdly, we have poor connectivity. Jammu and Ladakh regions have comparatively lesser connectivity than Kashmir valley. Rail connectivity is of primary importance for changing the economic condition of any region. Therefore we have to wait till Kashmir and Ladakh are connected by railway line which has to remain open throughout the year.
Another argument that can be put forth in support of demand for declaring J&K a special state is low level of its industrial profile. The State lacks industries, particularly Kashmir and Ladakh. Jammu has just a sprinkling of industries with limited capacity of influencing the economy of the State. Industrialization, though of much importance in contemporary times, is a lengthy process for which beginning is yet to be made. The more we delay, the more we need enhanced funds for developmental schemes.
Yet one more factor strengthening the argument in favour of special status for the State is the disturbed condition in the state owing to two decade old militancy. It has left adverse impact on the progress of the State.
Taking these facts into consideration, the Chief Minister is justified in asking the Central Government to include our State in the list of such states as will receive funding for centrally sponsored schemes in the ratio of 90:10. It means that for any project, which the Central Government offers to the State, the Centre shall bear 90 per cent of expenditure and the State concerned will bear the remaining 10 per cent. Now, notwithstanding what has been said in favour of the proposition, there is another side of the picture also. Firstly, it is right from the beginning of independence and accessions of the State that it has been treated as a special case for development. Look at the record of the Planning Commission of India which was the main agency for six decades for approving developmental projects and for providing funding, and you will see that J&K has received much larger funding than any other state in terms of area and population. Why have we not been able to come out of the stage of backwardness? This question needs to be answered. Secondly, even as of today, J&K has the highest income per capita in comparison to any other state in the Indian Union. If this is the reality, and of course it is what the official record tells us, then the argument that we continue to be a backward state stands refuted.
As regards geographical location and climatic conditions, J&K is no doubt a hilly state. But it has large potential of developing its economy. Himachal Pradesh is a hilly state, much more hilly than J&K. Yet it has never claimed to be given the status under CCS. Rajasthan is mostly dry and desert state with very harsh climate and limited water resources. It has far less road connectivity than J&K has. Yet Rajasthan never asked for the CSS status. It exploited and explored other means of development to strengthen its economy. J&K has rich forest wealth, water resources, tourist industry, horticulture, handicrafts and religious tourism. Why has not this State become self-sufficient and why has it not reduced its dependence on cash doles from the centre in one way or the other. Why can it not meet the 50:50 share criteria as most of the States of the Indian Union do? As regards militancy and turmoil, yes it gripped the State since 1990 but the fact is that even during the period of militancy, the Centre continued to provide funding for annual and five year plans. For no major or minor project did the Centre withhold funds for development of the State. Even most of the expenditures incurred on security and relief measures connected with militancy have been borne by the Union Government. Therefore to say that owing to militancy, J&K should be given CCS status is not tenable.
The reality is that the State needs to bring about drastic reforms in administrative structure and system. There is large scale inefficiency, incompetence and corruption all proving detrimental to the progress of the State. The State Government should set its house in order before going out with a begging bowl. The government must have the definite agenda of self-sufficiency in all sectors. It is a rich state in regard to natural resources and manpower. It has received lion’s share in developmental programme all these years. But if it has failed to implement the Central schemes, and that is the reality; it must look inwards and identify the failures. This does not mean that the State does not need to be the beneficiary of Central Government’s largesse. That is part of national policy and it is no obligation on the State. It has the right to be among the beneficiaries. However, the point we want to make is that the State must focus on a comprehensive and elaborate programme of self-sufficiency.
Follow our WhatsApp channel