Arjimand Hussain Talib
Yaoundé (Cameroon), July 19: It is an old story now that 60 percent of Jammu & Kashmir state’s expenditure now comes from central ‘grants.’ Within India, and even abroad, this theory is widely circulated and believed.
Media in India is again posing questions today: ‘how come a state which gets such generous grants from New Delhi remains so discontent and rebels so often?’ These questions reverberate every now and then. But there are many facts which remain unknown. Facts, which are plain facts.
A latest Reserve Bank of India (RBI) study “State Finances: A Study of Budgets of 2009-10” reveals some parts of those facts. It sheds some interesting light on the state’s administrative expenditure and lower social spending. It also gives some comparisons with other states, sharpening our understanding of the ‘dependency syndrome.’
According to the document, J&K received Rs 13,252 crore as grants from the Centre in 2009-10. In comparison, the eight conflict-ridden northeastern states received grants and loans worth Rs 29,084 crore from the Centre in 2009-10, which, as per the report, was 44% of their combined total expenditure. And what does that mean?
It may mean that these states generate more internal revenues and that is why these grants constitute only 44 % of their expenditure. But if that is so, why do these states need such grants in the first place?
The RBI document sheds important light on the pattern of public spending in J&K. It says the government spending on the social sector in the state — education, healthcare, rural development, social welfare, etc — is a mere 30% of the total expenditure. And this kind of social spending has remained stagnant in J&K since 1980.
These percentages mean J&K has the fourth lowest proportion of social spending among all states in India. The all-state average of social spending is 40% in India. And then there are states like Chhattisgarh which spends 54% on social sector, Maharashtra spends 50% and Rajasthan 46%.
According to J&K’s 2010-11 budget document; power, interest payments, security expenditure and ‘other expenditure’ consumes 30 per cent of the state’s budget. The rest about 40 per cent goes into salaries and pension.
Out of this, power, some interest payments and security expenditure are not due to the state’s fault.
Let us take power, for example. Central-government owned National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC) produces 1560 MW of power from J&K.
NHPC’s generation cost per unit of power in J&K is an average 0.30 paisa, but the state is charged a much higher tariff. Our power deficit and the drain on the budget are primarily for this reason.
Then is the question of the state’s energy deficiency. According to the Draft J&K State Hydel Policy, 2010, at present J&K’s unrestricted demand for power is 2120 MW, while suppressed demand is 1450 MW with scheduled curtailment. That means there is a deficit of about 500 MW even vis-a-vis restricted demand. Can industries really thrive?
The per capita power consumption in J&K makes interesting analysis as well. According to the J&K State Hydel Policy, 2010, J&K’s per capita power consumption is 750 units, compared to 872 units in Himachal Pradesh, 706 units in Uttarakhand, 1506 units in Punjab and 1208 units in Haryana. These are the main states where J&K’s power goes.
Then the political question. Despite repeated demands from the state and the Rangarajan Committee’s recommendation of handing over of some of the power houses back to the state, New Delhi has chosen to look the other way. This is despite the fact that the NHPC-run projects in the state have earned huge profits since commissioning.
J&K’s State Hydel Policy, 2010 proposes a hydel project in private-public partnership to remain out of state hands only for 35 years. That does not apply to the NHPC because New Delhi wishes that so.
Interestingly, NHPC reported a 94 per cent jump in consolidated net profit at Rs 2,090.50 crore for the financial year 2009-10. A bulk of its profits comes from J&K. Its Chairman and Managing Director, S.K. Garg was quoted in the Business Line in May saying that the hydro power firm was looking to invest its surplus funds in the mutual funds market!
The RBI report also sheds interesting light about the high administrative expenditure - 12% of all expenditure - in J&K. The report says that there are states with similar harsh terrains, like Himachal Pradesh and Sikkim, which spend only about 6% on administration.
Then let us take the issue of the annual per capita spending. The RBI document says that J&K’s annual per capita spending by the government was about Rs 20 lakh in 2009-10. In other ‘economically backward’ and conflict-ridden states like Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, the per capita spending is much higher - Rs 59 lakh, Rs 35 lakh and Rs 38 lakh respectively for the same period.
Then there are other ‘economically-backward’ states like Meghalaya, Manipur and Nagaland where government per capita spending ranges between Rs 18 to 21 lakh per annum.
Jammu & Kashmir’s annual imports are to the tune of around Rs 25000 crore. There is hardly any official mechanism to calculate the inbuilt taxes that J&K’s citizens pay on those imports, which go directly to government of India’s tax kitty. If an average of 12 percent of such taxes is calculated, J&K state pays Rs 3000 crore in terms of in-built taxes, which are never reflected in any system.
Jammu and Kashmir’s record in internal tax collection is not bad either. It retains its top position in terms of Value Added Tax (VAT) collection in whole of India. The government has already revealed that the Commercial Taxes Department collected record revenue of Rs 1721.59 crore by the end of February 2009 as compared to Rs 1623.87 crore during the same period in 2008.
However, there is a flaw in some direct taxes analysis. Many direct taxes, like the income tax, are not reflected in the state’s finances just because they are directly booked by non local companies outside the state. They get never reflected in the state.
Add to all this the misery of J&K’s tourism sector. Despite a show piece airport at Srinagar labeled as an ‘international airport’, the government of India is yet to find the political will to make it so. And it still looks for the clues for the unrest in Kashmir’s streets.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Kashmir: A way forward
Creating a win-win-win for all from the current movement
Arjimand Hussain Talib
For the first time in many decades, Kashmir’s movement for the restoration of its lost political sovereignty has attained a big moral high ground. The current upsurge – which many Indian analysts admit is an uprising - has a real potential of taking Kashmir out from its decades-old suffering. It has also a potential to bring India and Pakistan closer with a new approach. Let us remember, the happenings in Kashmir today are guiding their political responses, and not the vice versa.
For the first time in several decades, India’s political and media establishments are seeing Kashmir’s yearning for rigged political sovereignty as it has been – fundamentally indigenous. There is real nervousness, and even discomfort. New Delhi seems to be short of ideas to contain the vivid political expression in Kashmir today.
Even at the height of militancy, when its rule was challenged to great lengths, it has never been as nervous. There is a growing public perception in India that New Delhi’s moral standing on Kashmir is weak, and hence the need for re-thinking the 60-year-old approach of military control and political manipulation.
Then see the language India’s media is using on Kashmir today. The clichés like ‘Pakistan-instigated’, ‘Pakistan-sponsored’ ‘Pakistani-backed’ etc. seem to have suddenly disappeared. For the first time in our living memory, news anchors on India’s TV news channels are short of words and arguments. The tone and tenor of the opinion makers in print media – including the top columnists – has changed. Such is the awe of the beauty of Kashmir’s current people’s movement.
Pakistan, on its part, seems to be watching and just going by the tide. Its response to the happenings in Kashmir has been muted – which, in the present circumstances, Kashmiris must appreciate fits the situation well.
Clearly, Pakistan cannot afford a groundswell of anger and upsurge among its population at this point of time vis-a-vis Kashmir. It is confronted with too many odds today. For Islamabad too, nothing could be as perfect a time as today to talk to India on Kashmir with its ears to the ground.
There are certain people in Kashmir who expect Pakistan to engage in Kashmir more proactively today. Sensible politics demands that Pakistan steers clear from the current movement of Kashmir, as it has been doing for a long time now. That will be as much a good to Kashmir as Pakistan itself. Admitted, there is a political cost to that – Kashmiris will mistake Pakistan’s silence and lack of support to its indifference. But given the longer term benefits of letting Kashmir’s movement evolve on its own, this cost will be paltry.
Kashmiris, on their part, must maintain the momentum of the current movement at all costs. That is a feeling nursed by an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris today. If the momentum of this movement is lost, it will take quite a lot to renew that again.
There is also an overwhelming view making the rounds in Kashmir today - that it is much better to undergo a prolonged suffering in one go to achieve a meaningful political goal rather than dying in perpetual everyday uncertainty and chaos. Such an opinion has its merit too.
But Kashmiris today have to guard against the temptations of militant transformation of this movement. The current level of oppression is seen by many youngsters as a big provocation and challenge ‘to their power and manhood.’ There are already stray voices of youngsters on social networking sites talking about guns and suicide missions. That course would be a collective suicide for Kashmiris, which must be avoided at all costs.
Sooner or later, given the supremacy of people’s peaceful movement, New Delhi will have to budge from its traditional standpoint on Kashmir in a significant manner. It has no other options. If it takes the Sri Lanka’s approach of mass slaughter of the Tamils last year, its cause in Kashmir will be lost for ever, with much wider ramifications. If it tries to buy time and take to same experiments it has been fiddling with since decades here, it is poised for a much larger upsurge among Kashmiris in the future. Kashmiris’ Gen-Next is different, so are their means and resolve to resist.
India’s Home Minister P Chidambaram’s offer of talks to the pro-freedom parties in Kashmir needs not be rejected altogether. Today pro-freedom parties in Kashmir have a big bargaining chip at hand. For that to materialize into some political achievement, both the Hurriyat factions need to meet and discuss a possible agenda for talks. If they do not meet, they will lose it again. Entering into a dialogue does not mean an automatic surrender or sell-out. However, sensible diplomacy demands that these people keep their doors half-open once they enter the dialogue room.
However, for the Hurriyats entering into any such dialogue without some confidence building steps from New Delhi would be too risky. The people of Kashmir today are too sensitive about the question of talks. They must get a feeling of achievement before talks could be initiated. It is not a bad idea to keep homework on one’s bottom lines done well ahead of time.
But there has to be caution. Any talks which may boil down to salvaging New Delhi from the current situation will be unacceptable to Kashmiris. The two Hurriyats can always walk out if they feel that the format and the substance of talks are no different than the past.
If, however, they sense a change in New Delhi’s heart, they could enlarge the scope of dialogue by inviting parties like the NC and PDP to support that process.
It would also not be a bad time to consult Islamabad before entering into such talks. At this point of time Islamabad might have some good ideas about such a dialogue process. However, it would be nice to leave the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) out from the scope of discussions at this moment. Pakistan has some real concerns if the treaty is taken up for re-negotiations. There is ample space for Kashmir under the present system of IWT which could be maneuvered.
As a sequel to such process, further Kashmir-centric Indo-Pak talks which are held in the spirit of mutual win-win as against the usual one-upmanship would not be bad either. It could well be the beginning of a new era of conflict resolution, disengagement from Afghanistan and real cooperation between the two countries.
Latest reports indicate that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for an all-J&K-parties’ meeting in New Delhi on Tuesday. In theory it makes sense to consult ‘democratically elected representatives’, but it is now a well established fact that these representatives at best represent certain people’s day to day governance needs and not the political aspirations of the masses.
As such, the process must go beyond the parties which are part basically part of the problem than a solution for Kashmir.
Arjimand Hussain Talib
For the first time in many decades, Kashmir’s movement for the restoration of its lost political sovereignty has attained a big moral high ground. The current upsurge – which many Indian analysts admit is an uprising - has a real potential of taking Kashmir out from its decades-old suffering. It has also a potential to bring India and Pakistan closer with a new approach. Let us remember, the happenings in Kashmir today are guiding their political responses, and not the vice versa.
For the first time in several decades, India’s political and media establishments are seeing Kashmir’s yearning for rigged political sovereignty as it has been – fundamentally indigenous. There is real nervousness, and even discomfort. New Delhi seems to be short of ideas to contain the vivid political expression in Kashmir today.
Even at the height of militancy, when its rule was challenged to great lengths, it has never been as nervous. There is a growing public perception in India that New Delhi’s moral standing on Kashmir is weak, and hence the need for re-thinking the 60-year-old approach of military control and political manipulation.
Then see the language India’s media is using on Kashmir today. The clichés like ‘Pakistan-instigated’, ‘Pakistan-sponsored’ ‘Pakistani-backed’ etc. seem to have suddenly disappeared. For the first time in our living memory, news anchors on India’s TV news channels are short of words and arguments. The tone and tenor of the opinion makers in print media – including the top columnists – has changed. Such is the awe of the beauty of Kashmir’s current people’s movement.
Pakistan, on its part, seems to be watching and just going by the tide. Its response to the happenings in Kashmir has been muted – which, in the present circumstances, Kashmiris must appreciate fits the situation well.
Clearly, Pakistan cannot afford a groundswell of anger and upsurge among its population at this point of time vis-a-vis Kashmir. It is confronted with too many odds today. For Islamabad too, nothing could be as perfect a time as today to talk to India on Kashmir with its ears to the ground.
There are certain people in Kashmir who expect Pakistan to engage in Kashmir more proactively today. Sensible politics demands that Pakistan steers clear from the current movement of Kashmir, as it has been doing for a long time now. That will be as much a good to Kashmir as Pakistan itself. Admitted, there is a political cost to that – Kashmiris will mistake Pakistan’s silence and lack of support to its indifference. But given the longer term benefits of letting Kashmir’s movement evolve on its own, this cost will be paltry.
Kashmiris, on their part, must maintain the momentum of the current movement at all costs. That is a feeling nursed by an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris today. If the momentum of this movement is lost, it will take quite a lot to renew that again.
There is also an overwhelming view making the rounds in Kashmir today - that it is much better to undergo a prolonged suffering in one go to achieve a meaningful political goal rather than dying in perpetual everyday uncertainty and chaos. Such an opinion has its merit too.
But Kashmiris today have to guard against the temptations of militant transformation of this movement. The current level of oppression is seen by many youngsters as a big provocation and challenge ‘to their power and manhood.’ There are already stray voices of youngsters on social networking sites talking about guns and suicide missions. That course would be a collective suicide for Kashmiris, which must be avoided at all costs.
Sooner or later, given the supremacy of people’s peaceful movement, New Delhi will have to budge from its traditional standpoint on Kashmir in a significant manner. It has no other options. If it takes the Sri Lanka’s approach of mass slaughter of the Tamils last year, its cause in Kashmir will be lost for ever, with much wider ramifications. If it tries to buy time and take to same experiments it has been fiddling with since decades here, it is poised for a much larger upsurge among Kashmiris in the future. Kashmiris’ Gen-Next is different, so are their means and resolve to resist.
India’s Home Minister P Chidambaram’s offer of talks to the pro-freedom parties in Kashmir needs not be rejected altogether. Today pro-freedom parties in Kashmir have a big bargaining chip at hand. For that to materialize into some political achievement, both the Hurriyat factions need to meet and discuss a possible agenda for talks. If they do not meet, they will lose it again. Entering into a dialogue does not mean an automatic surrender or sell-out. However, sensible diplomacy demands that these people keep their doors half-open once they enter the dialogue room.
However, for the Hurriyats entering into any such dialogue without some confidence building steps from New Delhi would be too risky. The people of Kashmir today are too sensitive about the question of talks. They must get a feeling of achievement before talks could be initiated. It is not a bad idea to keep homework on one’s bottom lines done well ahead of time.
But there has to be caution. Any talks which may boil down to salvaging New Delhi from the current situation will be unacceptable to Kashmiris. The two Hurriyats can always walk out if they feel that the format and the substance of talks are no different than the past.
If, however, they sense a change in New Delhi’s heart, they could enlarge the scope of dialogue by inviting parties like the NC and PDP to support that process.
It would also not be a bad time to consult Islamabad before entering into such talks. At this point of time Islamabad might have some good ideas about such a dialogue process. However, it would be nice to leave the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) out from the scope of discussions at this moment. Pakistan has some real concerns if the treaty is taken up for re-negotiations. There is ample space for Kashmir under the present system of IWT which could be maneuvered.
As a sequel to such process, further Kashmir-centric Indo-Pak talks which are held in the spirit of mutual win-win as against the usual one-upmanship would not be bad either. It could well be the beginning of a new era of conflict resolution, disengagement from Afghanistan and real cooperation between the two countries.
Latest reports indicate that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for an all-J&K-parties’ meeting in New Delhi on Tuesday. In theory it makes sense to consult ‘democratically elected representatives’, but it is now a well established fact that these representatives at best represent certain people’s day to day governance needs and not the political aspirations of the masses.
As such, the process must go beyond the parties which are part basically part of the problem than a solution for Kashmir.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)